HC Deb 21 October 1981 vol 10 cc338-59 5.46 pm
Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hereford and Worcester Trial Area Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 885), dated 19 June 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 July, be revoked.

This prayer gives us an opportunity to discuss a trial area. In the Hereford and Worcester area the concept has been in being for only three weeks. Indeed, the concept was contained in the Transport Act 1980. It is a controversial matter. We opposed the concept of a trial area in Committee and on Report, but we were defeated. This is the second, not the first order. The Norfolk order also reflected the Act's intention to declare a designated area as a trial area for the operation of public road passenger services.

In April, we did not oppose the latter order because it was largely in keeping with the concept embodied in the Bill. In that area there has not been much controversy about the order's implementation. However, that is not true of the Hereford and Worcester trial area order. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It is important to remind ourselves about the Government's intentions when they designed these trial areas. Trial areas are not a new concept to Parliament. Some years ago a Labour Government used the term "trial areas" for experiments with certain types of transportation in rural areas where transport was difficult or expensive to maintain. Therefore, we have been involved in the principle of trials. However, the development of a trial area for all public bus transport in a designated area is a completely new concept. An attempt will be made to see whether road service licences can be done away with and whether the consumer can be provided with a greater choice in the provision of transport.

In our earlier debates the Secretary of State outlined his anxiety about the decline in the number of bus passengers since 1949. He pointed out that the figure of 17,000 million passengers had declined to 7,000 million by 1979. That considerable decline worried hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister particularly wished to see whether it was possible to increase the choice available to passengers within a certain area by dismantling the system of controls that still exists in major parts of Britain. I refer to the road service licences that are given by the Traffic Commissioners. Appeals concerning them can be made to the Secretary of State.

The Minister believes that the concept should be applied throughout the country though he is only prepared to test it in limited areas. We support him in that. Although we complain about the possible consequences of operating the scheme in a limited area, we do not wish to unleash ideological concepts on the travelling public in the country at large. The Minister was quite clear. He felt that this was an interesting limited experiment to see whether he could set the people and operators free. He wanted to become the Freddie Laker of the roads. The idea was that these trial areas would provide a good opportunity to test the theory that if one removes the requirement for a road service licence, the public will get better services and the taxpayer will pay less in subsidies.

We were told that 10 counties were straining at the leash to become members of this exclusive club of trial area operators. When they realised the significance of what the private and public transport operators told them about the maintenance of services, they shied off. They feared losing the integrated transport system. They were not prepared to put the system at risk, no matter how much it had declined over the years. They did not share the Minister's enthusiasm. The Minister was in favour of the scheme but he was somewhat sceptical about the role of road service licences. I remind the House of the Minister's remarks in Committee. He said: What is in the Bill is based on prudence and caution. We wish to test the belief that road service licensing will prove unnecessary in trial areas introduced in consultation with the county councils and upon application by the county councils themselves.

That was said during a debate about the right of county councils to consult district councils and whether district councils should have a veto on this question in the event of a disagreement about applications for trial areas between counties and districts. There is a considerable difference of opinion between the district councils and county council in the Hereford area.

The Secretary of State also said: The trial area itself is basically an area in which there is no restriction on the number of bus services."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 February 1980; c. 936–65.]

It is clear from that that trial areas should be free from restriction. We must allow bus operators to give the best service that they can.

That statement was echoed by the new Secretary of State in a speech at the Conservative Party conference because he said: Our trial areas in Norfolk and Hereford and Worcester will, I hope, show us the way forward to further easing of restrictions.

The idea behind the trial area was to be free of restrictions and not to burden our bus operators by commissioners deciding when a bus should run and what the fare should be. Such restrictions were regarded as a restraint on the provision of adequate services for the consumer.

Looking at the facts of the Hereford case, one finds that the system is not as the Minister expected. Since certain financial inducements have been offered by the Government, I assume that agreement has been reached on how trial contracts in this area will be handled. The arguments in Committee about whether the Government would force such a system on areas have been reflected by the division in the county council of 45 votes to 33 after a debate on whether to risk being a trial area. That proposal has been vigorously opposed by some district councils which have only consultation rights. They will have to live with the judgment of the county council. There is a unique alliance between private and public sector operators against the implementation of the trial area.

The expected 10 applicants did not knock on the Government's door, and Ministers have had to travel round with bags of cash to induce local authorities to introduce the system. I understand that it cost the Minister £200,000 in Norfolk and £140,000 in Hereford. I admit that that money might represent a combination of a direct grant and a transport supplementary grant, but it was paid out to persuade people to operate a system that the Minister once thought would not cost money. He believed that it would involve less money and produce better services. The counties have agreed to the system, not because of conviction but because they have been bribed financially. I am reminded of one of his speeches. The press notice of a speech by the Under-Secretary, headed "Travel squandermania criticised", stated: The spending of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money on cheap bus fares in the bigger cities is a waste of resources that could be spent in much more sensible ways and could lead to a serious loss of jobs.

That did not prevent the Under-Secretary from running round with taxpayers money asking authorities to buy the trial area concept.

According to a press statement by the local authority concerned, there will be no decorating of the area's 428 schools before the next century. The authority, apparently, will not be able to maintain the schools properly. Garden parties and fetes are being organised to raise money to repair rotten doors, and so on. If the Minister has £100,000 to spare, it would be better to give it to the education system so that the minimum standards of education may be guaranteed in the area of Hereford.

However, the Minister has decided to use financial inducements. It would not be unfair to say that he is using bribes to persuade authorities to accept the trial area concept.

What is the result? I have seen the figures. It appears that the fears of some hon. Members in Committee might well be justified, although it is a little early to say whether the new system has worked. The same applies to the Norfolk scheme. In Committee, we reduced the experimental period from three years to two years because we hoped to reduce the damage that we believed might occur as a result of pursuing the principle of trial areas. A number of authorities expressed views similar to those expressed in Committee.

The Hereford scheme is different from the Norfolk scheme. It is also different from that envisaged in Committee. We must bear in mind that the Government's intention was to remove restrictions and to set bus operators and people free. The plan was to remove the requirement for the road service licence. However, a new licence came into being. The county council imposed a new requirement. It decided that it would determine the nature of the service, the competition and the type and quality of service operated. Education contracts are an important source of revenue to bus operators, particularly private operators. All operators were requested to give notice of the areas in which they would operate without subsidy. The real restrictions applied to areas for which bids have been made for contracts which require public support. The restrictions are considerable.

Many forms have to be filled in when a request is made for a trial area. Information about timetables, fares, quarterly changes in the provision of services and the rates to be charged for scholars is required. Minimum and maximum fare levels have to be provided when a request for a subsidy to operate a service is made.

It was much more information than the commissioner required under the old service. The operators have to fill in more forms and provide more information, presumably on the basis that the contract lasts only for 12 months—that is, if they can keep up with the contract during that time.

Clearly, a road service licence has been replaced by a county council licence, except on the profitable areas where it does not require the agreement of the county council, although there are restrictions placed on that. If an operator is in receipt of a subsidy under the county council licence, he cannot compete on a profitable route and provide an alternative to the consumer. Apparently that is not allowed, because, if he does that, he will be denied the subsidy given by the county council. Indeed, to make the restrictions tighter, the county council has set up a register—a club for subsidised operators. If an operator competes on profitable routes and he is in receipt of a subsidy for another route, he faces the penalty of the loss of that subsidy.

The commissioner did not lay down any such restrictions. The restrictions for a county council licence are considerably greater than those for a commissioner licence. There is a disadvantage about appeals which Parliament writes in when it gives the power to the commissioner to decide such principles. Therefore, we now have a considerably different position. There is a further example of more restrictions being placed than was envisaged by the commissioner system. It is the old problem of private competition that everybody fears. When an operator produces a timetable, another bus operator can arrive three minutes earlier. The Transport Act 1930 was passed to prevent that sort of development. Under the provisions of the present Act there is nothing to stop somebody working three minutes ahead of an established route, and the existing company will need county council permission to withdraw. The fear is there will be another restriction providing that if the operator is in receipt of a subsidy, he will lose that subsidy if he carries out the competition that the Minister says he wants on routes which are not conditioned by subsidies. The evidence shows something quite different from what was intended by the Act, because there is a regulated system controlled by the county council.

The result is difficult to assess, The Minister says that it will take two years and that we must wait and see. I am glad that I am not in the trial area and do not have to make the judgment. I have visited it and made clear my views about what I think the result will be at the end of the two years. I shall stand by that, and we shall see what the position is. However, sufficient evidence is beginning to surface. For example, the National Bus Company has reduced its routes to 400,000 miles from approximately 700,000 miles. It has pulled out of the non-profitable sector, gone away from the cross-subsidisation, and decided to limit its activities solely to the profitable area. There is no doubt that has happened. Whether the routes were profitable or non-profitable is a matter of judgment, but I am told by the company that there has been that reduction in mileage. It has led to a restriction of services at weekends, in the early hours and at night. It creates problems not for the majority of passengers, but for those who have to travel at those times. There is a student in my area who, because of that restriction in Humberside, cannot get to a lecture at 9 o'clock in the morning. He can get to the town only 10 or 20 miles away at half past nine or 10 o'clock. A few people only may be inconvenienced, but it undermines the way that we think a public service should be run.

There has been a restriction in services. The private operators have taken up some of the services. We must wait and see how long they will last. Some prices have risen, others have been reduced and many remain the same. The report on that position estimates that, having gone through all the tendering systems, only one new operator was established. Two or three applied for each of the contracts, although it had been envisaged in the survey that 25 new operators would emerge. The subsidy system budgeted for £160,700. Presumably, most of that is Government money so that the ratepayers do not gamble with their money. The operators are gambling with the bags of money given to them by the Minister when they were induced to take on the trial areas. The tenders show a reduction of about £62,000 on the year. The county surveyor is much more realistic about the possibilities. He believes that the service may cost more. It depends whether Midland Red can maintain its present services. There are doubts about that, because of the financial problems of the National Bus Company and the further restrictions on its financial obligations imposed by the Government in May.

The smaller operators who have won contracts may find in a few months that they are not able to meet their obligations and that the service has cost much more than they estimated. There is evidence for that both in the Midland Red area and in my area of Humberside where the operators found, after two or three months, that the operation cost considerably more than the tender price they had submitted to the council.

The reality is that the council recognises that in some instances some tenders may have been too low for economic viability and that certain operators may wish to terminate contracts after a few months' experience. The conditions of contract provide for that eventuality. The council wishes to show that the service costs less, but it allows contracts for less than 12 months because the tendering price may be too low and may have to be increased in two or three months. Those are the fears when an established system is disrupted.

I must tell the Minister that one of the large operators in that area—I think it is Yeovils—opposed the system. It has 40 buses and claims that it has lost three operations through the tendering system. It believes that contracts have gone to operators with low tenders who may not be able to work economically. The company also points out that one operator who won a contract operates from a car park and has some arrangement with a garage about maintenance with non-union low-wage labour. No established bus operator, private or public, can hope to compete on those terms. The disaster is that the county council is prepared to allow for that. It is making a gain at the moment, but it admits that in a few months the operators may be knocking on its door and asking for more money. We must bear in mind that in future the costs of transport will increase far more than those in any other sector. The surveyor's report shows a certain amount of realism about the system upon which the council has embarked.

There will be fewer services for the consumer. Some of the operators feel that they have to operate the system because the county council is enforcing it. Although they are co-operating, they are extremely doubtful about the full circumstances and consequential effects of the system.

Our argument is that the order does not reflect the intentions of the trial areas as envisaged. We think that it raises important points about transportation and transport policies generally. One example is the new interpretation of the trial area that has been canvassed and debated. It may mean that the county councils that I visited in the summer, such as Devon, which would not touch the trial areas with a barge pole, but were perhaps tempted ideologically to consider it, now find and believe that if they can control the services by the purse strings—as many county councils have wanted to do—they will be happy to have that control. The Minister may find more than two or three knocking on his door because the trial has beer adjusted not to the trial area envisaged and not to whether fewer restrictions produce better services. In fact, I have pointed out the restrictions. We find ourselves having to adjust to a situation which we think will lead to a deterioration in the established public sector at the expense of the small operator who is much more susceptible to the costs and operations of transport planning.

The second area of major concern is the National Bus Company. It is a large operator with considerable overheads. It is probably a higher cost operator than it needs to be. When I look at the sort of offers and terms with which the National Bus Company has been involved, I often ask myself "When you did the map exercise, why did you not offer them 400,000 miles at no subsidy?" Why was that not considered? I do not agree with that principle. There is much work to be carried out on the costings of the National Bus Company. Various criticisms have been made in the House—

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

Perhaps the NBC and other public transport operators recognise that hitherto there has been a duty to attempt to provide a degree of public service as opposed to a purely commercial service.

Mr. Prescott

I was coming to that sound transport concept, which is wrapped up in the question of cross-subsidisation. Since 1930 we have all believed that a balanced service should be provided and that it should be cross-subsidised. What is taking place in the trial areas may undermine that principle in the remainder of Britain. It may provide a direct threat. If the revenue and passenger miles of the NBC begin to reduce, that will affect its operating costs which, in turn, will affect other areas of its operation. Approximately 60 per cent. of operators in Britain are in the public sector, and they carry about 90 per cent. of the traffic. Therefore, it is important to maintain that major section of transportation.

We must bear in mind that the financial targets placed upon the NBC by the previous Secretary of State require it to make further cuts in its costs. The Secretary of State said: I have also set the company a performance aim for 1981 in terms of a reduction in operating costs per vehicle mile of 3 per cent. in real terms.—[Official Report, 22 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 201.]

That will increase the difficulties of maintaining the cross-subsidised service in which the NBC has been involved If the inter-city services are taken away from the NBC, its problems will become considerably worse, with serious consequences for the transportation system. That raises the question of the future of the NBC. However, I recognise that some deal has been made about legitimately considering the heavy capital interest costs of the company and its contribution to meeting its costs.

Worry has been expressed by those living in the area affected by the order about safety operating standards. The Minister should keep a close watch on the operating standards, licences and control of the buses. It will be useful to know whether the standards are lower—as commonly alleged—because of smaller operators working on lower costs and cutting corners and paying non-union labour.

I turn to the issue of licences. The order means that licences will be issued by county councils, which will replace the commissioner. There is no appeal against a county council decision. There is no appeal to the Secretary of State. Previously, if an operator applied for certain routes that the commissioner thought would be against the public interest—for example, Whitehaven—and even if the inspector appointed by the Minister agreed, as he did, with the commissioner, the Secretary of State could and did say "My judgment is far better and I am overruling the decision." That sort of appeal will no longer be possible.

The Opposition oppose the order because it does not reflect the terms and conditions laid down in the Act. It raises important issues that have not been debated by Parliament. The restrictions and controls of licensing being developed in the Hereford area may reduce the full consequences of the order. However, we believe that the order will lead to a reduction in services for the consumer at a higher cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer. We shall oppose the order in the Lobby tonight.

6.14 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

The order affects my constituency. I have a long-standing interest in transport matters and spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. I do not intend to detain the House by repeating my Second Reading speech. However, I said at that time—and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) agreed with me—that the proposals should not be put forward as a panacea for all the ills of rural transport. The problems are deeprooted and there is little or no money in rural transport. We fall back on the argument that, bearing in mind all the faults of the old system, we should achieve a proper level of subsidy, which, I regret, must always be given from our precious resources, in the most meritorious manner.

I wish to deal with some of the specific remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We are grateful to him for providing an opportunity to discuss the matter. He put his case fairly. As he said, it is too early to decide whether the system is working. He mentioned that several times. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition will not force the House to divide. The hon. Gentleman said that he was glad that doctrinaire policies were not being followed throughout Britain. That is a two-edged sword. A debate at this stage is somewhat doctrinaire. We are discussing a worthy experiment that should be allowed to pursue its course.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that district councils were against the order. In the short time that has been available to me, I have not found that to be the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had good reason to make that claim, which, I assume, is a national summary. I wish him good luck in that context. However, in the Herefordshire area, where the experiment is taking place, district councils have not complained to me, although I have received five, if not 10, letters this week complaining about virtually everything else under the sun.

Mr. Prescott

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that district councils are not opposed to the order. They have taken votes on the issue. The city of Hereford is against it, as are other district councils. Simply because the hon. Gentleman has not received correspondence about the matter does not mean that the district councils in his area are not against it.

Mr. Temple-Morris

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good grounds for his remarks. As he will appreciate, the city of Hereford is not in my constituency, although it is in my area. It is not one of the most rural councils. Indeed, it is the most urbanised council in my area. The very rural Leominster district council and other district councils will be primarily affected by the order. There are three in my constituency, and they have not complained to me.

I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have relentlessly pursued the byways and highways of our constituencies during the recess. I visited 35 villages in remote parts of my constituency, in addition to towns and other places.

It should go on record that no complaint was ever made. It was mentioned only in the context that fares were tending to drop and that the National Bus Company was retreating to the main routes and leaving more of the isolated routes to the main competition. I say, so far so good for this experiment and for Leominster. I hope that the Minister is pleased to hear these words. He knows that my area requires this experiment to continue. If, at the end of the day—I shall not be doctrinaire or dogmatic—it is not working, for whatever reason, the House must reassess it.

This is a long-standing problem. The public are not using the services that are provided because they have motor cars. Most people have motor cars and the proportion of those in rural areas who have motor cars is higher than in urban areas. The net result is that the old and young, who are often poor, suffer. That is the problem now and it was the problem before the experiment was introduced.

We would all love to subsidise virtually everything if we could. However, when we do not have the necessary resources and when we have not had them for many years, we must consider seriously, fairly and honestly which are the most suitable areas to subsidise. We must stretch the private sector's role as much as possible. We must see what it can do.

The old licensing procedures involved far too much procedure and it was far too difficult for any "new boy" to come into the business. With this experiment we shall be able to see what can be done and I hope that we shall have a much better service for the public. I hope that the experiment will succeed. We must bear in mind the poor old customer.

I have much time for national bus companies and I do not criticise them or other original operators, which have been called upon to play a difficult role. However, at the end of the day the customer must be considered. If the experiment succeeds, the customer will be much better off. Indeed, he is already better off on certain routes. If it does not work and we start losing too many routes, it will not be enough to say that the fare has been reduced on route A if we lose routes B and C.

There has been competition and there has been tendering within the experiment. It is said that the county council's role in some ways supersedes the traffic commissioners' role. The county council has not considered the rather tortuous criteria that the traffic commissioners used to have to consider. More importantly, it has put no fewer than 53 contracts out to tender. Many small operators have tendered for them and have obtained them. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, said that there were very few "new boys" coming in. However, if the 26 had come in, or even more than that, no doubt the cries of "cowboy" and "sheet tender" would have gone up more loudly than the criticisms that have been expressed by the Opposition. The experiment has given us one new boy and we have the sound system of existing operators who are mainly small. Where there has been no competition and there was no tendering, the tenders, in the view of the county council, have been much more expensive.

Surely it makes sound sense for the nationalised bus companies to drop back to the main routes. We are all familiar with the rural areas, even those who represent urban constituencies. One has only to drive through them by day or night to see vast Midland Red buses. In my area there are vast buses. If the lights are on at night, one might see a solitary passenger sitting in the back seat admiring what he can see of the view. That is not good enough when one considers the amount of public money that is being expended.

I want public money to go where it is needed—for example, to schools. It should not be poured into a company operating on both large and small roads, such as the National Bus Company, irrespective of the needs of the consumer and, although operating properly and well, expensively by comparison with the humble routes that might be operated at any given time.

Finally, the experiment is being studied by many reputable bodies, including Bristol university, which has shown much interest in it. It is an active concept. It is far more active in Hereford and Worcester than in Norfolk. Norfolk has had its experiment and it does not seem to have taken off so well there. I concede that immediately. A go is being made of it in Hereford and Worcester and I ask the House to wait and see. I hope that we shall have a more informed debate subsequently. At present, as the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said, it is premature for us to seek to ascertain where the House stands on this matter.

6.25 pm
Mr. Peter Fry: (Wellingborough)

First, I declare my interest, which is well known to those who take part in transport debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a significant remark. He said that public transport in rural areas virtually cannot survive without subsidy. That is one of the most significant aspects of this short debate. In the years when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, some of us thought profoundly how we could improve the level of public transport, especially in rural England, where it appeared to be collapsing.

As I understood the original intention of the experimental areas, it was to have a virtual "free for all" and to see what could be provided. It was not intended to feed in public money from the center to keep services going. If that had been the original idea, we would have approached the problem from a slightly different angle. Having said that, it is significant that there now appears to be a realisation that in many parts of the country, we cannot keep even a skeleton of public transport without some subsidy. Whether that subsidy is paid on transport grounds, which I would dispute, or on social service grounds is a subject that the House should debate on a future occasion. However, this debate is useful. Unfortunately, it is too late to be effective.

A prayer to annul the order should have been tabled before the experiment came into being. As I understand it, it has been operating for about three months. In fairness, we should await what happens in Hereford and Worcester.

Some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were interesting. Will many of the small operators find before 12 months are out that they are regretting the tender that they submitted and that there will not be the improved services that were intended? The Government are right to experiment and it is right to let the experiment run its course. However, at this stage I shall sound one or two words of warning to follow some of the comments that have been made. Cross-subsidisation has been the effective means of maintaining what public transport there is in many areas. We can disagree with cross-subsidisation when we can move completely away from it. If we do, we must accept the corollary that unprofitable services are likely to be dropped.

I accept that over the short term, or even the medium to long term, Many people feel able to operate a service better and more economically than those operated in the public or private sectors. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that what happened in coaching surprised even him. By and large it has not been the private operator who has cleaned up in the inter-coaching service. That has been done by the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries because of their size and organisation. They have been able to undercut and in some areas they have put out of business the private operators who had hoped to take advantage of the 1980 Transport Act.

I am not saying that that is right or wrong. I am merely suggesting that the intentions behind the Act have not been fulfilled by events. I suspect that the Government's intentions in respect of experimental areas will follow a similar pattern. In some areas their intentions will be fulfilled but in others they will not.

However, I am dismayed that the county council has apparently been put in the position of judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and just about everything else. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that, during the passage of the 1978 Transport Act, when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, we strenuously advanced the view that district councils should have a greater say in the transport balance. There were battles on that issue on many mornings in Committee. It is odd that the two parties appear to have transposed themselves now that the other is in Government.

The district councils often know better than the county councils. They know what services the people want. As we get nearer to the population by approaching the first tier of elected representatives we often find that that man or woman knows better what his or her area wants.

There is a great danger in making it appear that the traffic commissioner is virtually superfluous in experimental areas. I have spoken to private and public operators. I have discussed these matters with trade unions and bus operators. I have discovered that over the years there has been a healthy respect for the independence and integrity of the commissioners. If responsibility is handed solely to a local authority—dare I mention the building of empires?—there is a danger that some of the decisions that are taken will be viewed in a somewhat different light from those that were taken by the commissioners and that there will not be the same respect for those making the decisions.

I shall not oppose the order. The experiment should take place. Even if it proves to be a disaster it will be useful. That is because it will teach us how our ideas operate when put into practice. That is the only way in which we can test anything. We may theorise and write books, but at the end of the day we must implement our ideas.

I commend my hon. and learned Friend and the Government for introducing the experiment but I hope that we shall not rush ahead and encourage too many experimental areas before we have examined closely the way in which the existing ones are operating. It would be a retrograde step to bribe too many areas to have experimental areas before we are aware of the long-term effects of those that are already in operation.

There is a growing uneasiness among bus operators about how they will cope with the phasing out of bus grant. This is not a party political issue. The Labour Government arranged to phase out bus grant and the Conservative Administration have not changed the timetable. The problem of replacing modern buses, which are expensive assets, must occupy the minds of those who are trying to run public services. There was the commendable intention in part of the 1978 Act to provide some continuity of subsidy for bus operators to enable them to plan their services. That continuity has not been provided. That part of that Act has never been satisfactorily implemented.

Bus grant is to be phased out and operators will be faced with the problem of finding money to replace their buses. Many small operators are in danger in the same respect as haulage operators of entering into competition and finding after a short while that they will no longer be able to continue. When that happens the question that arises is, "Who will pick up the mess?" If the services fail, are we to expect the county council to approach the Government to tell them, "These operators cannot run on this basis; you, the Government, must increase the money that is being provided."? This issue warrants the closest investigation.

When my hon. and learned Friend replies, in his usual efficient way, I hope that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my purpose to carp or to criticise the Government's policies. There are many unresolved questions and at the end of the day we are interested in ensuring that the customer gets the best possible service. If the best possible service is one that provides no buses in the evening and no buses on Sundays, that might suit 80 per cent. of the local population that travels on the route but it might condemn the other 20 per cent. to virtual isolation.

The answer does not lie in satisfying large percentages of local populations. We must consider the contribution that a bus service makes to the quality of life, especially in rural England. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be too ready to say, "I provided a new bus service between village A and village B but the public will not be able to use it for most of the week because it operates on an extremely restricted timetable." I hope that better services will flow from the experiment, but we are at an early stage. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to continue experimenting. However, if we are to subsidise, it might be better to view the overall situation. If we abandon cross-subsidisation we may need more and more experimental areas and more and more public money to maintain the very minimum of public transport.

6.36 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)

I must apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate. I was conducting a party of constituents to the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, about the closure of a school and the reorganisation of schools. I was placed in a rather difficult position.

I do not wish to say very much about the order, which is very much centerd upon Hereford and Herefordshire. First, I commend the county council for its initiative in taking advantage of the offer to conduct the experiment. In my constituency there are a city service and rural services. They have been of great interest to me during the time that I have been a Member of this place and for much longer.

The complaints that I have had levelled at me by my constituents over the years are based on large, empty buses rumbling through the countryside and phenomenal expense as perceived in bus fares. I have received complaints of services being discontinued in the city when there might have been a demand. However, demand has fallen off because of the high cost. The main operator in Hereford city has said to me consistently by innuendo that unless there is more subsidy the city service will collapse. He has then added, "Where will the city be then?" There has been a steady rumbling. It is said, "Unless there is more subsidy we shall have to pull out."

If we do not conduct experiments we shall not ascertain what is possible for rural transport and urban transport. It is vital that we get the maximum possible juice out of the trial period and that we examine carefully the consequences after the expiry date. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, the experiment should be monitored as it proceeds so that the lessons can be learnt. If, as once again my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said in his enlightened remarks, the experiment is a disaster, we shall thereby have learned that it was a disaster. However, if we find that the system adjusts itself to accommodate the different criteria that we have set for it and matches itself more accurately to the needs of those in the rural areas and in the cities, we shall have a sound foundation for breaking down some of the rigidity and nonsense within bus services.

Over the years we have placed ourselves in an almighty twist over buses. We have built a massive superstructure, massive overheads and massive rigidity. That is because we have failed to realise that circumstances that applied in 1931 no longer apply. Therefore, it is right that we should conduct the experiment. I shall be watching its progress with great interest. I hope that towards the end of the experiment we shall have an opportunity to ascertain how it has gone and the lessons to be learnt from it.

6.40 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

As one or two hon. Members have said, in some ways the House has been unlucky in the timing of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, if the debate were to annul the order coming into effect, it should have been held earlier. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, it is too early to judge the success of the experiment. That is an opinion with which I thought the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared to agree. That was no one's fault. The usual channels were unable to arrange a debate before the recess. The prayer against the order was tabled when the new system was merely being contemplated and we are now debating it a few weeks after it has come into effect.

I understand why the Opposition felt that they had to table the prayer when they did because the introduction of the trial order in Hereford and Worcester was accompanied by a background of strong opposition from all sorts of bus operators and from two out of the four district councils affected—they were evenly balanced. No doubt the Opposition, who have always been opposed to those elements of the Transport Act 1980 that seemed likely to introduce into transport greater competition, flexibility and consumer choice, feared that there would be a disaster in this area.

The Opposition were spurred on by warnings given by various people interested in the subject which, fortunately, did not deter the Hereford and Worcester county council. The banner headline of the Hereford Evening News of 11 March 1980 says: "Cowboys will ruin buses". Mr. Roger Shutt, deputy chairman of the city of Hereford public transport committee, said: The scrapping of licence controls under the proposed Transport Bill will create 'cowboy' and 'maverick' bus operators … the local bus system could disappear under Hereford and Worcester County Council's experiment in making Herefordshire a 'free for all' area. Cowboys and maverick operators will cotton on to the best routes while other bus services will suffer. As they cut each other's prices and put each other out of business, the buses will gradually disappear.

On 20 May 1980 a private operator, well known to those who follow the subject, Mr. Ron Whittle of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport Association, got headlines in the Hereford Evening News saying: Buses 'free for all' warning. Services will be lost—operator. The establishment of a free enterprise bus system in Herefordshire could lead to the demise of services on uneconomic routes, according to a leading independent bus operator. The warning was given by Mr. Ron Whittle … He told a conference in Hereford that it was the public and the rural areas in particular which would suffer as a result of the creation of a free-for-all on the buses.

Those are the fears that were voiced and that the Opposition shared when they tabled the prayer to the order. I hope that I shall persuade the House that those fears are unfounded and that so far, at this early stage, the order is proving to be something of a success.

I do not criticise the Opposition for pressing on with their debate, because there have been recent reports giving the impression that all is not well in Hereford and Worcester. The Sunday Times last Sunday contained an article by Muriel Bowen, headlined: Bus 'freedom' scheme is hitting the services".

Miss Bowen appeared to believe that Since the Hereford trial area came into operation in July, … there has been a reduction in bus services.

Again I am glad to tell the House that that is based on a total misunderstanding of what has happened in Hereford since the order was made. Miss Bowen was referring to the withdrawal of Midland Red from bus services in the area because Midland Red, as a national policy, decided that it would not participate in the tendering system for stage carriage. That does not mean that the public have lost services. To be specific, on 21 September 1981, which was when Midland Red withdrew its service from the area, the X91 from Hereford to Stratford was withdrawn. Most of that route was outside the trial area. The better used part outside the area between Malvern and Stratford was replaced by a new service, the X51. The part of the service in the trial area with which we are concerned has been fully replaced by an independent, private sector operator.

On 21 September, Midland Red withdrew all services between Hereford and Ledbury, but they were replaced by the independent operator who had bid for the route. The new services operated at lower fares than those of the Midland Red. There has been no loss of service. A few evening and Sunday services have been withdrawn on those routes as the county withdrew the subsidy because of low patronage. That sort of thing has been going on steadily all over the country for some time. It was a deliberate decision by the county that they were large empty buses. New services are emerging in the trial area.

The nationalised companies—Midland Red and National Welsh—for some reason decided not to go in for the tendering process for stage carriage. They tendered for services for assisted pupils, but now they have been withdrawn from the area. Now all the services are being provided by independent stage carriage services in the trial area. Therefore, some services have changed hands and some have changed hands between independents because a new independent successfully bid for the service. Usually the same fares as before apply. Some services have changed from Midland Red to independent private operators. In those cases, so far lower fares have been the first perceived effect by the customers in that area.

Some examples of the changes in fares that have taken place so far with the changeover from a national bus company—either Midland Red or National Welsh routes—to independent private sector operators under the new arrangements have been supplied to me by the county council. I have mentioned Hereford and Ledbury. The National Bus Company charged 110p for a single journey. The fare is now 75p. A day return cost 175p and it is now 150p. Hereford to Tarrington cost 90p single, and the fare is now 50p. A day return was 145p and it is now £1. Hereford to Lugwardine was 55p single and it is now 40p. A day return was 90p and it is now 80p. Hereford to Tillington Common was 80p single and it is now 30p single. The day return fare was 130p and is now 60p. Hereford to Widemarsh Common was 20p single and is now 10p. A day return was 40p and is now 20p. Much Marcle to Ledbury was 65p single and is now 36p A day return was 105p and is now 60p.

Those changes are where the new operator is operating substantially reduced fares. I do not say that to criticise the National Bus Company fare operations, but it illustrates one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, and one of the points which we made repeatedly throughout our discussions on the Transport Act 1980 about rural services. There are many areas where the local operator with lower overheads and a more flexible ability to respond to service demand will often be able to provide rural services in a much more cost effective way than the large nationalised concerns.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

In fairness to the House, will the Minister say that the National Bus Company is operating a series of routes in that trial area? Its fares were reduced when it cut back its scheduling in order to run only over such parts of the routes as it could operate without transport supplementary grant. Therefore, it is misleading, at least, to suggest that in taking over parts of schedules from the National Bus Company new operators have brought in lower fares, because the National Bus Company reduced fares and now operates in the area without transport supplementary grant. Private operators working in the area, however, receive transport supplementary grant.

Mr. Clarke

The private operators are receiving less transport supplementary grant than the National Bus Company used to, and they have reduced the fares. There are still some national bus services operating on a non-supplementary grant basis. For some reason they decided not to bid for revenue support and take part in the tendering process. Fares have been reduced, in some cases in response to competition with independents. But the overall picture is that so far the fares have come down where there has been a transfer of rural routes from the national buses to the independents.

The first applications are coming in for new services where people have taken advantage of the de-licensing in the area. The county council will deal with these, but I understand that applications are coming in from Hemming Coachways, which wants to provide new services from Worcester to Leominster via Bromyard. Some of them will be inside the trial area. Some will be outside and require traffic commissioner approval. A company called Flash Coaches is proposing to provide additional peak hour services in the Hereford city area, particularly in the Newton Farm and College Road areas. It is proposing to introduce a new Sunday service out of Hereford to Widemarsh Common. From the customers' point of view, the present pattern is fairly satisfactory.

I stress for the last time that one is only saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster has said, "So far, so good". I am not claiming, on the basis of three weeks' operation, that the overwhelming success of the trial area has been proved. But so far, in this limited period, there has been no loss of services, the fares are generally lower, there is less cost in subsidy to the ratepayer and the taxpayer, and new services seem to be in the offing. It is a very limited period, but I put it to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that that is a curious background against which to vote against the order and try to stop the experiment.

A great deal of credit for what has happened must go to the Hereford and Worcester county council, rather than to the Government, who brought about the change in the law. Hereford and Worcester county council has devised its own system in order to take advantage of the trial area arrangements. I readily concede to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the method adopted by the council is not one which was contemplated by the Ministers concerned. It is, as it were, a Hereford and Worcester one-off use of the trial area. Nevertheless, I say "Good luck" to the Hereford and Worcester county council.

During the debates on the Transport Bill, we made clear that what we were proposing in trial areas, as elsewhere, would not cut across or reduce in any way the role of county councils in managing their transport policies. It is up to them to take advantage of what we have done and to devise their own methods in doing so.

There have been some quotations from the Official Report, and I should like to quote from what I said on the subject on Report: Counties must realise that trial areas are not a substitute for revenue support… However, trial areas will provide counties with an opportunity to use revenue support in an intelligent, creative and better way. Trial areas will identify not only the present routes, who operates them, what are their losses and how much finance is required to keep them running—most of the present networks are a combination of history and chance—but which routes the county council, as the transport authority, considers to be fulfilling a public need but which are not being served or which might not be served if there were change to a more commercial regime. The county councils must identify the routes and the public need, and decide how to make intelligent use of their revenue support to provide the necessary services.

Later I said: We are indicating that counties can, if they so wish, take away the restrictions on road service licensing where they can make better use of revenue support. Once the restrictions have been lifted, there will be a wider choice of operators and service. It is for the county councils to use the purse strings that are in their possession and their duties as a co-ordinating authorities to make the best use of the moneys provided."—[Official Report, 24 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1023–4.]

That is what the county council is doing in Hereford and Worcester, but I had not expected that this method would be adopted. The county council is using the purse strings, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said. It is identifying the routes that it wishes to support because it perceives a social need for them. The county is inviting tenders from operators who want to provide those services. It is choosing the service that seems, in its eyes, to give its ratepayers the best value for money, and it is allowing the operators to provide services in a way that is much more matched to social need.

In our debates on the Transport Bill that general approach is certainly what we anticipated. We much prefer that approach to the idea that we can go on pouring in subsidies to the existing network provided by the existing operator, who comes along at the end of the year and says how much he thinks he is losing in the particular area of the county council and expects the council to foot the bill.

Mr. Prescott

That will happen now.

Mr. Clarke

I have understood that there are some doubts about the tendering process that has been carried out by Hereford and Worcester. I have, therefore, contacted Hereford and Worcester in order to find out exactly what have been the rules of the tendering process that the council has undertaken. The council has kindly discussed the matter with me. The council insists that there is no question of stifling competition between the operators. There is no question of taking sanctions against operators who do not co-operate.

I am told that if an operator moves on to a service which at the moment is being provided by a subsidised operator, and the new operator moves in on an unsubsidised basis, obviously the council will be wary if later that new operator wants some subsidy for his service. The council also reserves the right, on school contracts, to shop around in the way that all county councils do. Otherwise, the tendering process has been aimed at getting the operators to provide the services which the county council wants. The county council has no licensing role.

Mr. Prescott: Oh!

Mr. Clarke

No, the county council has no licensing role. The process that has been described by the hon. Member is the one that the county council has adopted in order to decide how to use the revenue support that it proposes to give, and it has gone for the tendering process.

The county council invited tenders for 53 services. All those services are now being provided. There were competitive bids for almost all of them. In five cases, three different operators bid for a service. In the majority of cases there were two operators bidding. There are now 13 operators, including the two National Bus Company subsidiaries, because they are providing some contracts for what are described as "entitled scholars" in the area. All the services have been taken up. There has been no transport desert. There has been no falling-off of services. The system is working rather well, in the manner that I have described.

It has been said that the county has taken this action only because we bribed the county to do it. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, as well as by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to offers of Government money for these operations. It is certainly true that—as with Norfolk—when Hereford and Worcester made the bid, which all county councils make each year, for transport supplementary grant, it put in an additional bid of £100,000 for what it feared might be the transitional cost of adopting a trial area system. The county council regarded itself as being prudent and saw this as an insurance policy against transitional cost which might emerge in going from the old system to the new. In our opinion, the county council was being very prudent. But when one looks at the almost hysterical campaigning which was taking place against the whole idea of a trial area, it is hardly surprising that the county should have wanted to have some insurance policy behind it.

The Secretary of State took those additional bids into account in awarding transport supplementary grant to the council. But so far, as again the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the county has found that it has not been necessary to use the additional money, or certainly not all of it, although the officials have put forward caveats to the effect that if there is a need to revise contracts after a short time, the council may need to draw on a larger part of that sum than has so far proved to be necessary. If the county does not draw on it, it will be in the happy position of having money available which it will be able to use in looking round for ways in which to indentify other worthwhile services. It will be able to repeat the process and develop an independent lower cost network throughout its rural areas, in that way improving its public transport system. Benefits could, therefore, flow to the area if the system continued to be a success.

It would seem, therefore, to be foolish to reject the order tonight. I hope that the trial area will be allowed to continue, in the hope that it will be as successful in the future as it has been so far. All the dafter arguments that have been used about trial areas are plainly wrong. A transport desert has not opened up in Hereford and Worcester. The first experiences there have been entirely favourable from the point of view of the county and the customers.

If the scheme remains successful it will continue for a minimum of two years, but it will not end in two years; it will go on indefinitely. The trial area is terminable. It is possible for the county council to approach the Secretary of State after two years and ask him to terminate it, but it will be terminated only if the county council makes that approach and if the Secretary of State agrees. We shall not terminate a trial area unless it turns out that the whole experiment is going wrong. I hope that the Hereford and Worcester trial area will prove to be a continuing success and will be initiated elsewhere.

Norfolk has been cited. Nobody has prayed against that order because nothing dramatic has happened there. The trial area has been declared, the traffic commissioners' control has been ended, the services are running and nobody has found anything left to make a fuss about. If anything, Norfolk has probably been a little too restrictive in the area that it has derestricted. It might, with hindsight have been a little more ambitious. Certainly, this has done no harm in Norfolk. I hope that other parts of the country will look at the experience of those two counties and will now put forward their own poposals.

The whole concept of trial areas was based upon the Government's belief that in significant areas of the country the whole paraphernalia of the traffic commissioner system would turn out to be serving no worthwhile purpose. It was there because it was there, and removing it might give county councils more opportunity to develop services in a way that would match modern public demands. We should certainly like to see more trial areas as the fears about them seem so far to be utterly groundless.

In conclusion, the narrow subject of trial areas by no means covers the whole problem of rural transport. It was never claimed to be the answer to rural transport problems I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that it certainly is not. Indeed, the concept of trial areas is not particularly aimed at rural areas alone. We are awaiting the first application from an urban area. I personally am sure that a useful trial could be carried out in a non-rural setting to see whether the present licensing restrictions really do much good in some of our medium sized towns and even in our cities.

The scheme in Hereford and Worcester is just one experiment. The answer for rural areas lies in experiments and innovation of all kinds. We want low-cost, independent operators with a rural base to emerge on to the scene. We want more community buses. We want more use of post buses, which are extensively used in Scotland. Car-sharing has a continuing and growing role to play in rural areas. There is room for more facilities to be shared with the services provided by social service and education departments. A great deal of additional thought and effort is needed on the whole problem of rural transport. The Government intend to give all this very high priority. In rural areas, as elsewhere, there is great need and much room for innovation, for new ideas, experiments and competition, for new operators and a more flexible range of services.

I believe that the Hereford and Worcester trial area has every prospect of opening the way for all those things, to the great benefit of people living in that part of the country. I therefore hope that the House will support the order and reject the prayer if, in the light of three weeks' experience, the Opposition insist upon voting against something which appears to be heading for modest but reasonable success.

7.2 pm

Mr. Prescott

Clearly, there is a broad philosophical difference between the two sides in their approach to transport matters. This was aired in the opening speeches and in some cases throughout the debate and I shall not reiterate the arguments.

Our basic contention has been that the second order for a trial area does not reflect the principle envisaged by the Minister. Indeed, his colleagues have made that point. We believe that a new principle is being enunciated, giving the county the right to control, through the licence of the purse strings, in a far more restrictive way than that in which road service licensing is at present conducted by the commissioners.

The Minister said nothing about rights of appeal in this matter. Parliament has always been prepared to provide for appeals in public interest matters, but that does not apply to the county councils.

I shall not reiterate the arguments. We believe that the free enterprise, all-competing concept has put the fear of life into these areas. They are therefore making sure that it does not apply by introducing restrictions and controls. If so, the Minister must face the argument that one has to subsidise bus services in order to maintain a total network. If that is the position, the House should decide the matter on that basis rather than support an order which clearly does not face up to the free enterprise concept, but is simply another system of controls and restrictions maintained by the taxpayer.

The Minister says that we may have to wait for two years or so to see what happens. We believe that at the end of that time the consumer and the operator will be worse off and the taxpayer will be paying considerably more. The reason why we shall vote tonight, however, is to make our position on this matter absolutely clear. We did not have the chance to do so during the passage of the Act because it did not envisage this way of operating a trial area. As the Minister said that he is considering extending it to other areas on these terms, the Opposition must make it absolutely clear that they oppose the principle embodied in the order.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 179.

Division No. 308] [7.05 pm

AYES
Allaun, Frank Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Dunnett, Jack
Ashton, Joe Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,) Eadie, Alex
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Eastham, Ken
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) English, Michael
Buchan, Norman Ennals, Rt Hon David
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Evans, John (Newton)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Carmichael, Neil Ford, Ben
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Foster, Derek
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Foulkes, George
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Cryer, Bob George, Bruce
Cunliffe, Lawrence Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Graham, Ted
Dalyell, Tam Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Hardy, Peter
Dewar, Donald Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Dixon, Donald Hart, Fit Hon Dame Judith
Dormand, Jack Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Douglas, Dick Home Robertson, John
NOES
Alexander, Richard Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Alton, David Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ancram, Michael Cartwright, John
Arnold Tom Churchchill, W.S.
Aspinwall, Jack Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Cockeram, Eric
Banks, Robert Colvin, Michael
Beith, A. J. Cope, John
Bell, Sir Ronald Cormack, Patrick
Bendall, Vivian Cranborne, Viscount
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Crouch, David
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Berry, Hon Anthony Dickens, Geoffrey
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Dorrell, Stephen
Blackburn, John Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Dover, Denshore
Boscawen, Hon Robert Dunn, James A.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Braine, Sir Bernard Eggar, Tim
Brinton, Tim Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon Faith, Mrs Sheila
Brotherton, Michael Fisher, Sir Nigel
Brown, Michael(Brigg &W Sc'n) Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Budgen, Nick Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bulmer, Esmond Fookes, Miss Janet
Burden, Sir Frederick Fox, Marcus
Butcher, John Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Cadbury, Jocelyn Freud, Clement

Question accordingly negatived

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) Prescott, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Radice, Giles
Kerr, Russell Robertson, George
Lamond, James Rooker, J. W.
Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Leighton, Ronald Sever, John
Lestor, Miss Joan Skinner, Dennis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Spriggs, Leslie
McCartney, Hugh Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Stoddart, David
McElhone, Frank Stott, Roger
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
McKelvey, William Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
McNamara, Kevin Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
McTaggart, Robert Welsh, Michael
McWilliam, John White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Marks, Kenneth Whitlock, William
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Maxton, John Winnick, David
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce Woodall, Alec
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Woolmer, Kenneth
Morton, George Wright, Sheila
O'Neill, Martin
Palmer, Arthur Tellers for the Ayes:
Park, George Mr. Donald Coleman and
Parker, John Mr. Frank Haynes.
Parry, Robert
Fry, Peter Normanton, Tom
Garle-Jones, Tristan Onslow, Cranley
Goodhew, Victor Osborn, John
Goodlad, Alastair Page, John (Harrow, West)
Gray, Hamish Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Pattie, Geoffrey
Grist, Ian Pawsey, James
Grylls, Michael Penhaligon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith Pink, R. Bonner
Haselhurst Alan Pollock, Alexander
Hawksley, warren Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Henderson, Barry Proctor, K. Harvey
Holland, Phillip (Carlton) Raison, Timothy
Hooson, Tom Rathbone, Tim
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Renton, Tim
Howells, Geraint Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hunt, David (Wirral) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Roper, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wright)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rossi, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Kaberry, Sir Donald St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Knight, Mrs Jill Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knox, David Speller, Tony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Lee, John Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stainton, Keith
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Stanbrook, Ivor
Loveridge, John Steel, Rt Hon David
Lyell, Nicholas Stokes, John
McCrindle, Robert Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Macfarlane, Neil Temple-Morris, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
McQuarrie, Albert Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Major, John Thompson, Donald
Marland, Paul Townend, John (Bridlington)
Marlow, Antony Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Tripper, David
Mather, Carol Van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Viggers, Peter
Mawby, Ray Waddington, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Walker, B. (Perth)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Meyer, Sir Anthony Waller, Gary
Mills, lain (Meriden) Warren, Kenneth
Moate, Roger Watson, John
Monro, Sir Hector Wells, John (Maidstone)
Montgomery, Fergus Wells, Bowen
Morgan, Geraint Wheeler, John
Morris, M. (N' hampton S) Wickenden, Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Murphy, Christopher Wolfson, Mark
Myles, David Young, Sir George (Acton)
Neale, Gerrard
Needham, Richard Tellers for the Noes:
Nelson, Anthony Mr. Peter Brooke and
Neubert, Michael Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Newton, Tony