§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 15, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'any person' and insert`a single non-profit making organisation'.No. 16, in page 6, line 15, leave out'in the course of that business'.
§ Mr. Hughes
These amendments deal with private sector vehicle testing and the Government's policy that the testing stations presently run by the Department of Transport should be transferred to private enterprise.
No Government policy in recent years has been more objectively and comprehensively examined or so thoroughly rejected. The policy was first announced in late 1979 and was opposed by every organisation in the industry. The Select Committee on Transport, an all-party Committee but with a majority of Government Back-Benchers, which took evidence from a wide spectrum of opinion, unanimously recommended that the Government should change their mind. Even after the Second Reading of the Bill, the Select Committee undertook yet another examination of the problem. That step is wholly unprecedented. Having re-examined all the witnesses from the industry, with the exception of Ministers who could argue the case in Committee, the Select Committee again reached the same unanimous conclusion. From 1979 until now, no organisation has positively supported the proposals.
762 What justification have the Government put forward for persisting against all the advice given to them and all the consultation that has taken place? On an earlier amendment the Under-Secretary of State told us that it was inconceivable that the Secretary of State, having consulted organisations, would not carry out their policy. Here the results of all the consultations were against the Government's policy, but the Government did not take a blind bit of notice of them.
The Government say that they should not be doing what private enterprise can do. It is a pretty lame excuse for proceeding down a path that could have serious road safety implications detrimental to all road users. It is not surprising that Ministers have been unable to persuade anyone to support the policy. To hand the test centre facilities over to private enterprise is to fly in the face of all the facts and against all the history of safety in the road transport industry. The network of stations did not grow by historical accident or like Topsy. The present system arose because the ad hoc system of roadside testing in operation since 1934 was not covering all vehicles on the road.
An attempt was made to speed up the scale of roadside testing between 1963 and 1965, but everyone accepted that that could cover only a small proportion of the vehicles on the road. It became obvious that maintenance was not up to standard and there was much disquiet in all quarters. There was unanimity of view that the only way in which road safety requirements could be met was by establishing a compulsory system of annual inspection through a geographical spread to give country-wide coverage and uniform testing standards. No one can argue that the system in operation since 1968 has been other than an unqualified success and has been, in the words of the famous or infamous television advertisement,a major contribution to road safety".However, we cannot afford to relax the drive to enhance the standard of maintenance, and it was disturbing to learn that from 1974–75 until 1979–80 one-fifth of all vehicles presented for their annual test failed at the first examination. The vehicles were presented for examination and were not stopped at the roadside. Such a failure rate leaves much to be desired. Indeed, 9.2 per cent. of the vehicles presented for the second test also failed the examination. We are talking about 156,000 vehicles failing their first test, and 15,328 vehicles failing their second test. If people think that we should relax safety standards against that background, they are mistaken.
The figures are significant. Even under the present system, it is clear that private enterprise finds it difficult to maintain safety and maintenance standards for vehicles on the road. I am not prepared to hand over the control of testing to private enterprise. The Government will move amendments ensuring that operators cannot run test stations or inspect their own vehicles. However, there can be no margin of error or profit in road safety. Great savings cannot he made by better, more efficient or quicker methods of testing. The strange thing is that there are only one to or two rich pickings. There are 67 main testing stations and 24 auxiliary testing stations.
I know that the House is anxious to make progress. I shall not bore the House with details. However, according to the Select Committee's report, from 1969–70 to 1979–80 the stations had an accumulated deficit of about £500,000. The deficits rose from £500,000 to £2 million in 1975–76. There have been different surpluses. In 1976–77, the 763 surplus was almost £1 million. It rises and falls in precise relation to the amount by which the Government have increased test fees.
In no sense of the word can the business be regarded as part of the free market economy. Given the work involved, it is not a major profit maker. Only a few of the full-time stations are viable. None of the part-time stations is viable. For example, in Scotland there are 19 stations—including those that are part-time. Only the stations at Kilmarnock, Bishopbriggs and Livingston could be viable. Whether hon. Members come from the North of England, the West, or the South, they will know that test stations are not viable concerns. No one believes that it makes sense to break up the chain, leaving the Department with stations that no one wants.
In Committee, the Government conceded that they would be left with many of the stations. The Select Committee was in doubt about the issue. In paragraph 82 of its first report, the Select Committee stated:We also accept the views of the operators' associations"—that does not refer to those outside the business—that if the transfer to the private sector does take place, it would be preferable for the system to be transferred as a complete unit, rather than a number of chains. We therefore recommend that the Department of Transport continues to explore the possibility of the testing station network being taken over by either Lloyd's Register, or by some other organisation of significant standing.Having reconsidered the matter, the Select Committee specifically stated:we have concluded that the transfer of the vehicle testing system to a single organisation or consortium is the only solution acceptable to the industry, and we believe that the Government's proposals, and the Bill, should be amended so as to preclude any alternative solution.Amendment No. 17 covers that point.
What has happened to the so-called Lloyd's option? Apparently the Government have gone cold for some reason and are not pursuing that matter. In Committee, they admitted that things had reached such a stage that they had called in the County Bank to advise on how to privatise the 91 test stations. On 21 March, an article in the Sunday Telegraph stated:Testing times at the County Bank. What a busy week it has been for County Bank. Its executives don't remember one like it. It has acted for MP Kent (bidding for Federated land), helped to bring about the big Saatchi & Saatchi deal with Compton, assisted British Sugar's efforts to keep Berisford at bay and launched AIMs on the way to market. But, last week, it was busy on something else which has not been made public. It has been asked by the Government to privatise the 100 or so heavy goods vehicle testing stations, probably the toughest of the privatisation plans. HGV is non-profit-making; all its income comes from testing fees, and the road haulage and bus companies are going to fight if there is any suggestion that the fees should be bumped up. County has been told to get HGV off the Government's books by the end of the year. Just how it manages that will be interesting.It will be interesting to all of us.
The Government say that that Sunday Telegraph article is over-dramatic. They have admitted that they are looking at ways of privatisation other than a comprehensive whole, against all the advice of the Select Committee.
The case for retention is quite conclusive. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's attitude to the suggestion by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which is looking at the possibility of putting together a consortium to keep the service in one whole. The case for retaining the stations as an integral whole is logically compelling.
764 I remind the House of the concerns expressed by Conservative Members on Second Reading as well as by hon. Members who served on the Transport Select Committee. If they follow the logic of those arguments—if they follow their convictions—they will support amendment No. 15.
§ Mr. David Howell
It is correct to say that the arrangements for testing public service vehicles have been discussed for some time with a view to possible improvements and developments of the service. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House about our plans and to show how we are proceeding in a pragmatic and constructive way in this important area.
I concede straight off that we have a basic prejudice in favour of seeing things done outside the Government, where that makes practical good sense, but always in the light of the requirement that the work or the service provided must be done to at least as high a standard, if not higher.
For vehicle testing we have clear aims to achieve in terms of safety standards and service to the industry. I acknowledge straight away the contribution that the present system has made to raising standards of vehicle maintenance and safety. We intend to see that the excellent qualities of the system are maintained and developed in the private sector. But we are also looking for practical improvements—I see no reason against doing that—particularly in the way in which the testing system responds to the needs of the industry that it serves.
It is against that background that we have approached this central question of who should take on the testing. That question has rightly been identified as the one that will determine the success of a private sector scheme.
There is no sense in tryng to prescribe in the abstract what sort of organisation would in theory be most suitable. Specific proposals need to be judged on their merits. I am sure that that is a perfectly fair and sensible point to put. For that reason, we were happy in Committee to accept an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), which now appears as clause 8(8) and (9) and which ensures that the House will be able to judge how well we have chosen before any authorisation can be made of an approved testing authority under clause 8. That is an important safeguard. It is one of many contained in part II that are designed to ensure that the new testing scheme will effectively meet the objectives that I believe we all share.
The aim of the Government is to adopt the arrangements that will best achieve our common objectives. We have had an open mind, which we expressed in Committee, on whether testing should be undertaken by one organisation or by several. We have been very much aware of the dangers of commercial monopoly, but we have also accepted that a non-profit-making body that is responsive to its customers would avoid those dangers.
Therefore, we were willing to take up the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport that we should pursue the possibility of Lloyd's Register of Shipping becoming involved in testing. I know that that proposal has found favour with many hon. Members, as well as with vehicle operators in the industry. It is one of the proposals of the Select Committee on Transport. It is the final proposal in the report: 765We therefore recommend that the Department of Transport continues to explore the possibility of the testing station network being taken over by Lloyd's Register or by some other organisation of significant standing.I do not think that anyone can sustain the argument that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) advanced, that we have in some way neglected or disregarded the detailed and constructive work done by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. It urged that we should pursue the possibility of Lloyd's Register of Shipping becoming involved. It also mentioned the idea of an affirmative resolution before we settled the pattern. On both those fronts we have made progress.
§ Mr. Bagier
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Select Committee made that suggestion as a second best? The Committee's main recommendation was that the testing station network should not be privatised.
§ Mr. Howell
The Select Committe looked at the alternatives. That is true. However, it came to the conclusion that if the privatisation solution were to be pursued, we should develop our ideas in this area. I am glad to be able to tell the House that our discussions with Lloyd's Register have recently made good progress. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Earlier this month, Lloyd's Register's executive board gave its agreement in principle to a proposal that Lloyd's Register should be associated with the establishment of a new association to undertake vehicle testing. The proposal is that the association would be under the control of Lloyd's Register and would closely resemble it in constitution and operation. The relationship would be reflected in its title—it would be known as Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Association.
I must make it clear that a great deal of work remains to be done on that plan, and I am not yet able to tell the House that we have concluded an agreement with Lloyd's Register. However, our discussions have entered a new phase and I have every reason to believe that the detailed negotiations, which we are now beginning, will be successful. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that development, which is in line with a number of the amendments and arguments put forward by Opposition Members.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
Will the Secretary of State elaborate briefly on the relationship between the new Lloyd's Register and the Council of Lloyd's? A Bill has just gone through the House that gives the Council of Lloyd's virtually complete immunity from suit. Will that be extended to the operation of the vehicle testing stations? If that were so, it seems to put people who have high responsibilities outside the scope of legislative common law rights.
§ Mr. Howell
The hon. Gentleman may be in some confusion between two different bodies, both of which happen to have the name Lloyd's but which have no relation. He is referring to Lloyd's insurance and I am referring to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which is not connected in any way with Lloyd's insurance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
This development means that we shall be able to transfer the testing network to a body of which the impartiality and independence are unquestioned and which has the competence and resources to provide a nationwide 766 service of the highest standard. With that assurance of the Government's intentions and with the numerous safeguards to which I have referred, the anxieties that have been expressed about the clause, and which were expressed before our plans had been developed as I have just described them, are unfounded and unnecessary. I hope that it is clear that we can and will establish a scheme that will preserve the impartiality and high safety standards that are rightly valued on both sides of the House.
I hope that it will be recognised that the course that we are pursuing is sensible and constructive, that it provides for the future, and that it meets our strong wish, which is the commonsense belief that such matters are better dealt with outside the Government machine. I hope that the amendments will accordingly be withdrawn.
§ Mr. Richard Needham (Chippenham)
As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the opportunity of making the necessary changes to the Bill to incorporate the feeling of the Committee. The Committee had mixed feelings. Its first report did not go against privatisation, but it stated that the case remained to be made. As the Secretary of State said, it encouraged discussions with Lloyd's Register. That has happened. I should like to register my full support for the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing stations.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes
I am grateful to the Secretary' of State for his answer so far. I must point out to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) that the Select Committee was quite specific. It said thatwe do not consider that the Government has yet justified its contention that private operators (still to be identified) would carry out the annual testing of commercial vehicles better than the current Department of Transport testing stations.Until the Department bring forward evidence to substantiate their contentions, we believe that the existing system of HGV testing stations should be retained. Meanwhile, the evidence leads us to recommend that within the existing system additional services to vehicle operators can and should be provided …If the Government is nonetheless determined to press ahead with its proposals",the Lloyd's option will come into play.
Nothing that the Secretary of State has said justifies going against the principal conclusions of the Select Committee. Nothing that he has said means that the service will be improved. Such changes as the industry wanted could have been accommodated. It is interesting to note that the industry did not want the proposed change. It was opposed, and remains opposed, to it, although it is forced to accept the Government's proposition. Lloyd's was always a second choice to keep the whole thing together.
As the Secretary of State said, the Government are in a new phase of negotiation with Lloyd's Register. The Lloyd's option is back in the negotiating system. If that is what finally emerges, we shall accept it, as it means keeping the whole system together. It is essential to have geographically uniform standards.
I cannot see why the Secretary of State will not accept amendment No. 15, which specifically states that this matter should be dealt with by a single, non-profit-making organisation. That would meet the wishes of the Select Committee and the Government's oft-stated assertions that they consult people and take account of the views expressed. If the Secretary of State will not accept the amendment, and although there is a difference in 767 philosophy between us, I hope that those who have read the Select Committee report will follow us into the Lobby and support amendment No. 15. In the interests of the industry, road users and safety, amendment No. 15 must be incorporated into the statute.
§ Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'any person' and insert
`a single non-profit making organisation'.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 273.770
|Division No, 169]||[12, 10 am|
|Abse, Leo||Field, Frank|
|Adams, Allen||Flannery, Martin|
|Allaun, Frank||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Alton, David||Ford, Ben|
|Anderson, Donald||Forrester, John|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Foster, Derek|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)|
|Ashton, Joe||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Atkinson, N. (H'gey)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||George, Bruce|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Beith, A. J.||Golding, John|
|Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)||Graham, Ted|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hardy, Peter|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Brown, R, C. (N'castle W)||Haynes, Frank|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)|
|Buchan, Norman||Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Home Robertson, John|
|Campbell, Ian||Huckfield, Les|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Cohen, Stanley||John, Brynmor|
|Coleman, Donald||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Cook, Robin F.||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Cowans, Harry||Kerr, Russell|
|Craigen, J, M. (G'gow, M'hill)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Crowther, Stan||Lamborn, Harry|
|Cryer, Bob||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Leighton, Ronald|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Litherland, Robert|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lyon, Alexander (York)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Dewar, Donald||McElhone, Frank|
|Dixon, Donald||McKelvey, William|
|Dobson, Frank||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dormand, Jack||McTaggart, Robert|
|Douglas, Dick||McWilliam, John|
|Dubs, Alfred||Marks, Kenneth|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Eadie, Alex||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Eastham, Ken||Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)|
|Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)||Maxton, John|
|English, Michael||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Meacher, Michael|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Stoddart, David|
|Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Stott, Roger|
|Newens, Stanley||Strang, Gavin|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Straw, jack|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|O'Neill, Martin||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Palmer, Arthur||Tilley, John|
|Park, George||Tinn, James|
|Parry, Robert||Torney, Tom|
|Penhaligon, David||Urwin, Rt Hon Tom|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Prescott, John||Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)|
|Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)|
|Race, Reg||Watkins, David|
|Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)||Welsh, Michael|
|Richardson, Jo||White, Frank R.|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Whitlock, William|
|Rooker, J. W.||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)||Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Sever, John||Winnick, David|
|Sheerman, Barry||Woodall, Alec|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)||Wright, Sheila|
|Silkin, Rt Hon S, C. (Dulwich)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)||Mr. Allen McKay and|
|Snape, Peter||Mr. George Morton.|
|Adley, Robert||Butcher, John|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Cadbury, Jocelyn|
|Alexander, Richard||Carlisle, John (Luton West)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Ancram, Michael||Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)|
|Arnold, Tom||Chalker, Mrs, Lynda|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Channon, Rt, Hon, Paul|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)||Chapman, Sydney|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)||Churchill, W. S.|
|Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Banks, Robert||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Bendall, Vivian||Cockeram, Eric|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Cope, John|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Corrie, John|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Costain, Sir Albert|
|Best, Keith||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Critchley, Julian|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Crouch, David|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Dean, Paul (North Somerset)|
|Blackburn, John||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Blaker, Peter||Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.|
|Body, Richard||Dover, Denshore|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Durant, Tony|
|Bowden, Andrew||Dykes, Hugh|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Eggar, Tim|
|Bright, Graham||Elliott, Sir William|
|Brinton, Tim||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Brittan, Rt, Hon, Leon||Eyre, Reginald|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Fairgrieve, Sir Russell|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Farr, John|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles|
|Buck, Antony||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Budgen, Nick||Forman, Nigel|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Fox, Marcus|
|Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||Luce, Richard|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||MacGregor, John|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||MacKay, John (Argyll)|
|Goodhew, Sir Victor||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Goodlad, Alastair||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Gorst, John||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Gow, Ian||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Gray, Hamish||Madel, David|
|Greenway, Harry||Major, John|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)||Marland, Paul|
|Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)||Marlow, Antony|
|Grist, Ian||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Grylls, Michael||Marten, Rt Hon Neil|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus|
|Hamilton, Hon A.||Mawby, Ray|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Hannam, John||Mellor, David|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Mills, Peter (West Devon)|
|Heddle, John||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Henderson, Barry||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Hicks, Robert||Moate, Roger|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Hill, James||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Morris, M. (N'hampton S)|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Hooson, Tom||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Hordern, Peter||Mudd, David|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)||Murphy, Christopher|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Myles, David|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Needham, Richard|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Nelson, Anthony|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Neubert, Michael|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Newton, Tony|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Normanton, Tom|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Onslow, Cranley|
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Kimball, Sir Marcus||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Parris, Matthew|
|Knox, David||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Lang, Ian||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Pawsey, James|
|Latham, Michael||Percival, Sir Ian|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Pink, R, Bonner|
|Lee, John||Pollock, Alexander|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Porter, Barry|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Proctor, K, Harvey|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)|
|Loveridge, John||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Renton, Tim||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Tapsell, Peter|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Thompson, Donald|
|Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Rossi, Hugh||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Rost, Peter||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Royle, Sir Anthony||Trotter, Neville|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Viggers, Peter|
|Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Waddington, David|
|Shelton, William(Streatham)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Shepherd, Richard||Waller, Gary|
|Silvester, Fred||Ward, John|
|Sims, Roger||Warren, Kenneth|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Watson, John|
|Smith, Dudley||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Speed, Keith||Wheeler, John|
|Speller, Tony||Whitney, Raymond|
|Spence, John||Wickenden, Keith|
|Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Wilkinson, John|
|Sproat, Iain||Williams, D. (Montgomery)|
|Squire, Robin||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stainton, Keith||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Stanley, John||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Stevens, Martin||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)||Mr. Anthony Berry and|
|Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Mr. Carol Mather.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee, and on recommittal), to be further considered this day.