HC Deb 26 October 1982 vol 29 cc925-33


Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 19, line 24, leave out from "the" to "of' in line 25 and insert cancellation of any such certificate and the issue in place of it

Read a Second time.

Mr. Booth

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end insert 'for the purpose of reducing the gross or net weight of a vehicle'. The Bill and the Lords amendment together have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to amend approval certificates for heavy goods vehicles. The approval certificates determine the way in which the vehicles are plated. Every HGV that operates legally in Britain has a plate that states the proper net weight, the maximum weight that it can carry, and so on.

Up to now it has been necessary for a vehicle to be examined before a certificate could be issued on which the vehicle was plated. To be legal, the plate had to comply with the approval certificate. The Lords amendment, coupled with clause 17, provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations in a way which would enable approval certificates to be amended without the vehicle being brought in for examination. In my view, it is a paving amendment for the raising of heavy goods vehicle weights. If heavy goods vehicle weights are raised by an amendment to our construction and use regulations, given that the Lords amendment and the clause are carried, it would then be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations so that the approval certificates for the HGVs were altered and the vehicles replated without examination.

My amendment would limit the power of the Secretary of State so that he could make regulations only to change approval certificates—thus allowing vehicles to be replated without examination —if the maximum weight to be carried by the lorry was to be reduced. He would not be able to use the procedure to allow vehicles to be plated for a heavier weight without examination.

If a vehicle is allowed to run with a heavier weight than that for which it was previously plated there is an almost unanswerable case for having the vehicle re-tested in the goods vehicle testing station as to its suitability to operate at the higher weights. We have had a number of vehicles in this country running with plated weights below the nominal weights for which the manufacturers claim they have been designed. The 32.5 tonnes articulated vehicle is probably the best known example. In fact, manufacturers say that they could sell that vehicle to countries whose construction and use regulations would allow it to run at 34 tonnes or more and it could still be a safe vehicle. However, that is a matter for those countries to decide; it is not a matter for the United Kingdom. The matter for us to decide here tonight is whether we as parliamentarians think it right that vehicles of which we have no experience in running at weights greater than their present plated weight should, on a regulation from the Secretary of State, be allowed to have their certificates amended and thereby run at higher weights.

I had thought that one of the mechanisms of the Bill had tended to avoid the amending of certificates. As a general rule, it has been the practice in the Bill that where any form of certification is to be changed a new certificate is required. It has been the view of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport that an amending certificate, of itself, can give rise to certain difficulties and open up the possibility of illegal operation. So there is the minor complaint that amendment of approval certificates is open to the same objections as amendment of any other document required for the legal running of a vehicle. However, that is nothing like as serious as the power of the Secretary of State to issue a regulation that would allow the owners of vehicles to have their approval certificates altered without examination of the vehicles.

The examinations which, in my view, would be necessary before vehicles should be plated, have their approval certificates changed and therefore be plated to carry greater weights, are numerous. I shall mention a few.

There are braking tests, for example, which may be totally adequate for a vehicle run at one weight, but may be anything but satisfactory for vehicles at other weights. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory—I think it was—did a series of checks on vehicles on British roads which had been covered by the appropriate plating and testing within a few months of their going on the roads. It found that the braking efficiencies were lamentably lower than those which the manufacturers claimed for them. Braking efficiencies of considerably less than 50 per cent. were not uncommon among the vehicles examined on our roads. There would be other safeguard mechanisms.

Presumably, if we are to be guided by the Government's White Paper on heavy lorries, guards may need to be fitted. A simple examination would be needed to see whether the appropriate guards had been fitted. That is something that would normally be taken into account if there were a requirement to have the vehicle re-examined or tested at the station.

Then there is the lighting of the vehicle. In particular, a re-test on exhaust emissions is important. We see vehicles carrying heavy loads up hills. That is where one is far more likely to see whether the controls are satisfactory than when they are running at lighter weights. There is also the question whether the suspension is capable of dealing with heavy loadings or whether, as many county surveyors and bridgemasters contend, it would threaten the underground services in our towns and cities. Those are all matters on which I believe it is perfectly proper to require a vehicle examination before replating.

In my view, the proposed way to deal with the problem cannot commend itself to the House in any case. The argument about whether to have heavy lorries on our roads should be completely divorced from the argument about whether vehicles should be allowed to be replated to heavier weights without re-examination. Unfortunately, unless the Government are prepared to accept our amendment, I fear that the whole problem of heavy lorries will again rear its ugly head, with the suspicion that, not only are lorry weights about to be raised, but that they will be raised and that the vehicles can be replated without being subject to a test station examination.

For those reasons, even if there were no question before the House, as I know there is following the Government White Paper, of lorry weights generally being raised, I hope that the House will not agree to allow vehicles to have their plated weights altered under approval certificates so as to run with heavier loads on our roads in any form of regulation issued by the Secretary of State, without requiring the practice to be carried out of having the vehicle checked in a station.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I support the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), whose argument was cogent and correct.

Perhaps the Minister can help me on one matter. As her Department will know, I have had much difficulty over the years with heavy trailers which are categorised as plated vehicles of the heavy goods variety. The problem in my constituency is that they come in from all over the world and park in residential areas. When I asked the police to remove them, they would not do so, initially, but after I received help from the Department of Transport the police made some headway. However, the owners then removed various fittings and in doing so put the trailers outside the Road Traffic Act 1974. They became simply pieces of garbage on the road. As the vehicles were not obstructing traffic, being in residential areas, we were unable to have the trailers removed.

Will the Minister assure me that such problems are solved by clause 17? May I be assured that where such trailers are parked in residential areas in my constituency they can be removed and not, as hitherto, be put outside the law by the removal of certain fittings?

Mrs. Chalker

For convenience, may I respond first to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I understand the problems that he and other hon. Members have experienced in the past of trailers having had wheels and other parts removed while parked within their constituencies. Unlawful parking is covered by the traffic regulation orsders. Even if parts are removed, action can still be taken against the owners of such unlawfully parked vehicles.

The matter will be dealt with later in extensive amendments which attempt to ensure that operating centres are properly used by heavy goods vehicle operators and that people in residential areas are not inconvenienced. I can deal with the matter at that point, or the hon. Gentleman may prefer to discuss the matter with me so that I an explain how we are trying to meet the problems caused by cowboy operators—not the vast majority of members of the Freight Transport Association Ltd. or the Road Haulage Association—who unreasonably drop their trailers wherever they see fit in residential areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to take up the matter later today or subsequently. We are seeking to meet the points that he and other hon. Members have made.

At the start of my reply to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), I should like to clarify the position about design weights. A vehicle's design weights, as shown on the Ministry plate, are approved by the Department of Transport. They are not only what the manufacturers say that the vehicle can carry, but what the Department realises is safe. The Department approves both the design weight and the maximum legal weight in the United Kingdom, and that is known as the plated weight. Lords amendment No. 17 does not move away from that concept.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's fears. In most cases I have no hesitation in saying that an individual examination should take place if there is a question of changing plated weights. For example, if a vehicle has been altered, it is right that there should be an examination before it is issued with a new plate and allowed to operate at revised weights. That might also be true with regard to downplating, as well as the more vexations problem of lorries carrying more than is currently permitted by British law which the right hon. Gentleman has foreseen.

From time to time the examination of a vehicle may not be necessary. The clause allows the Secretary of State flexibility to deal with such cases. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to restrict that flexibility only to cases where there is a weight reduction. A lighter weight does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is safer. There is no reason why the clause should not apply to increases as well as to decreases in weight.

The clause was drafted to deal with an instance where a vehicle has not been altered, but where the operator seeks to take advantage of a change in the legal position in relation to plated weights. Such an example would be if Parliament should decide to approve changes for goods vehicles.

There are many vehicles on our roads today the design and construction of which make them suitable to operate at higher weights, if allowed They are travelling around a third full of air. The design weight on a vehicle's plate will show its limit. In deciding that weight, my Department has carefully considered all the vehicle's characteristics. It has judged that the vehicle could operate safely at a higher weight but that, because the law stipulates 32½ tonnes, it can operate only at that weight. That is why both design weights and maximum legal weights are shown on the vehicle's plate.

If in future Parliament should decide that higher weights are acceptable, regulations made under the clause will allow suitable vehicles with higher design weights to take advantage of such a decision. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would mean that all such vehicles would first have to be examined, and that would duplicate work already done.

It may be the view of the House that vehicles should be individually examined. If so, they can be examined under the terms of the Bill as it now stands. However, it seems wrong for us to dispense with the flexibility provided by the clause, which would be the result of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. We would tie ourselves to the individual examination of a vehicle irrespective of whether, in practical terms, we could safely—that is the key word—dispense with the examination. If there is any question of safety, the examination must take place.

A further safeguard exists if the right hon. Gentleman is looking for one. Any provisions that the Secretary of State brought forward, such as those I have mentioned, would be contained in regulations subject to the normal parliamentary controls. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment is unnecessary. All regulations covering any change in maximum permitted weights would be before Parliament. No decision has yet been taken whether lorries which could carry higher weights within their design weight should be examined. That could be done if the House so wished. Clause 17, as amended in the other place, simply allows room for manoeuvre.

If there were an alteration, such as the addition of an axle or an alteration to the braking system and if there were to be any change in the plated weight, an examination would, in the interests of safety, always have to be carried out.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to side and rear guards. If they were to be mandatory, it could only apply to new vehicles, because not all vehicles could safely have side and rear guards fitted to them.

Lighting and exhaust emissions are subject to the annual HGV test, as is suspension. A vehicle's suspension is extremely important because not only the overall suspension but the load bearing on each axle must be safe.

In any case where there has been an alteration or where something that has happened to the vehicle gives cause for hesitation, a re-examination of that vehicle can be required before any advantage is taken of any future weight increase which the House might make. The possibility of altering plated weights without an examination arises only when the vehicle has not been altered and its design weight is appropriate to any change in the weight limit.

In one way, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness welcomed amendment No. 17 because it improves the procedure for alterations of the certificate of plated weights. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not a good thing to amend existing certificates. We would prefer to issue a new document instead of amending the old document, because, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, unscrupulous operators might try to change the original alteration. That is why Lords amendment No. 17, which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, is before us.

It would be wrong to remove the flexibility in the amendment. In the interests of safety, examinations must be carried out whenever there is any change in plated weight. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and I are at odds not where a vehicle is designed to take more than the permitted maximum weight at the present time, but where, because of our present laws, it takes a maximum weight of 32½ tonnes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Booth

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that until her closing remarks, the hon. Lady put forward a powerful argument for not changing the law in any way—not even to the limited extent that we were prepared to allow in our amendment—on this difficult issue of allowing changes in plated weights without examination.

However, the hon. Lady said that normally any change of weights would require examination, and that the Government were thinking of using the powers only if they could get an amendment to the construction and use regulations so that existing vehicles could operate with higher weights. The whole burden of our argument is that it is exactly at that point that we would wish to reassure our constituents that vehicles which were to have their gross weights increased would be re-examined before they went back on the roads.

If it were possible to withdraw our amendment and vote against any changes, I would be happy to accept the hon. Lady's guidance, but if she examines clause 17 and the Lords amendments to it, she will realise why that is not possible. Lords amendment No. 17 deals with the minor question of taking away the provision for amending the certificate and, very sensibly, replacing it with the provision to withdraw the previous approval certificate and issue a new one. But that does not bite upon the Opposition amendment, which is the only issue on which we can vote.

I agree that our amendment would not prevent the Government from issuing a regulation, if they chose to do so, to enable approval certificates to be issued for lower plated weights on vehicles. We are assured by the Government that they have no intention of doing that. They want this provision so that they can allow vehicles to be plated at higher weights. The Minister said that only if the law were changed to permit existing vehicles to use heavier gross weights would this provision be used. The House can form its own judgment on that proposition.

Our amendment would improve the Bill in that it would limit the practice of permitting plating changes without the re-examination of plating changes at lower gross weights. Such an improvement would be possible only if we could take out clause 17 altogether. Therefore, I commend the House to vote for the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 279.

Division No. 330] [6.14 pm
Abse, Leo Cohen, Stanley
Adams, Allen Coleman, Donald
Allaun, Frank Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Alton, David Conlan, Bernard
Anderson, Donald Cook, Robin F.
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Cowans, Harry
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Ashton, Joe Crowther, Stan
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Cryer, Bob
Bagier, Gordon A.T Cunliffe, Lawrence
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Beith, A. J. Dalyell, Tam
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Davidson, Arthur
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Bidwell, Sydney Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) Deakins, Eric
Bradley, Tom Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Dewar, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Dixon, Donald
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) Dobson, Frank
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) Dormand, Jack
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Douglas, Dick
Buchan, Norman Dubs, Alfred
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Duffy, A. E. P.
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Dunnett, Jack
Campbell, Ian Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Campbell-Savours, Dale Eadie, Alex
Canavan, Dennis Eastham, Ken
Cant, R. B. Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Carmichael, Neil Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) English, Michael
Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie) Ennals, Rt Hon David
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Ewing, Harry Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Fitch, Alan Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Ford, Ben Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Forrester, John Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Foster, Derek Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Foulkes, George Newens, Stanley
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald O'Neill, Martin
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Palmer, Arthur
George, Bruce Parker, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Parry, Robert
Golding, John Pavitt, Laurie
Gourley, Harry Pendry, Tom
Graham, Ted Pitt, William Henry
Grant, John (Islington C) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Prescott, John
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) Race, Reg
Hardy, Peter Radice, Giles
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Richardson, Jo
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Heffer, Eric S. Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Home Robertson, John Rooker, J. W.
Homewood, William Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Hooley, Frank Rowlands, Ted
Horam, John Ryman, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. Sever, John
Howells, Geraint Sheerman, Barry
Hoyle, Douglas Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Huckfield, Les Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Short, Mrs Renée
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Janner, Hon Greville Skinner, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
John, Brynmor Snape, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West) Spearing, Nigel
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Spriggs, Leslie
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) Stallard, A. W.
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Stoddart, David
Kerr, Russell Stott, Roger
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Strang, Gavin
Lambie, David Straw, Jack
Lamond, James Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Leadbitter, Ted Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Leighton, Ronald Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tilley, John
Litherland, Robert Tinn, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Torney, Tom
Lyon, Alexander (York) Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Wardell, Gareth
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
McKelvey, William Watkins, David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Weetch, Ken
McMahon, Andrew Welsh, Michael
McNamara, Kevin White, Frank R.
McTaggart, Robert White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Marks, Kenneth Whitehead, Phillip
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) Whitlock, William
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Wigley, Dafydd
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn) Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Maxton, John Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Maynard, Miss Joan Winnick, David
Meacher, Michael Woodall, Alec
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Woolmer, Kenneth
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Wright, Sheila
Young, David (Bolton E) Mr. Gorge Morton and
Mr. Hugh McCartney
Teller for the Ayes:
Adley, Robert Fell, Sir Anthony
Alexander, Richard Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Finsberg, Geoffrey
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Fisher, Sir Nigel
Ancram, Michael Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Aspinwall, Jack Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Fookes, Miss Janet
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Forman, Nigel
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Fox, Marcus
Banks, Robert Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Fry, Peter
Bendall, Vivian Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Best, Keith Glyn, Dr Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy Goodhart, Sir Philip
Biffen, Rt Hon John Goodhew, Sir Victor
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Goodlad, Alastair
Blackburn, John Gorst, John
Blaker, Peter Gower, Sir Raymond
Body, Richard Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Grieve, Percy
Boscawen, Hon Robert Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Bowden, Andrew Grist, Ian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Grylls, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard Gummer, John Selwyn
Brinton, Tim Hamilton, Hon A.
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brooke, Hon Peter Hannam, John
Brotherton, Michael Haselhurst, Alan
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Hastings, Stephen
Bruce-Gardyne, John Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul Hawkins, Sir Paul
Buck, Antony Hawksley, Warren
Budgen, Nick Hayhoe, Barney
Bulmer, Esmond Heddle, John
Burden, Sir Frederick Henderson, Barry
Butcher, John Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Hicks, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Hill, James
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Chapman, Sydney Hooson, Tom
Churchill, W. S. Hordern, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hunt, David (Wirral)
Clegg, Sir Walter Irvine, Bryant Godman
Cockeram, Eric Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Colvin, Michael Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Cope, John Jessel, Toby
Corrie, John Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Costain, Sir Albert Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Cranborne, Viscount Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Crouch, David Kaberry, Sir Donald
Dickens, Geoffrey Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen King, Rt Hon Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Kitson, Sir Timothy
Dover, Denshore Knox, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Lamont, Norman
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Lang, Ian
Durant, Tony Latham, Michael
Dykes, Hugh Lawrence, Ivan
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Lee, John
Eggar, Tim Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Elliott, Sir William Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Emery, Sir Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Faith, Mrs Sheila Loveridge, John
Farr, John Luce, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
McCrindle, Robert Scott, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
MacGregor, John Shelton, William (Streatham)
MacKay, John (Argyll) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Shepherd, Richard
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Silvester, Fred
McQuarrie, Albert Sims, Roger
Major, John Skeet, T. H. H.
Marland, Paul Smith, Dudley
Marlow, Antony Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Speed, Keith
Marten, Rt Hon Neil Speller, Tony
Mates, Michael Spence, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mawby, Ray Sproat, lain
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Squire, Robin
Mayhew, Patrick Stainton, Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stanbrook, Ivor
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Stanley, John
Miscampbell, Norman Steen, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stevens, Martin
Moate, Roger Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Monro, Sir Hector Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Montgomery, Fergus Stokes, John
Moore, John Stradling Thomas, J.
Morgan, Geraint Tapsell, Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton S) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Temple-Morris, Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mudd, David Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Murphy, Christopher Thompson, Donald
Myles, David Thorne, Neil (Ilfford South)
Neale, Gerrard Thornton, Malcolm
Nelson, Anthony Townend, John (Bridlington)
Neubert, Michael Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Newton, Tony Trippier, David
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Trotter, Neville
Page, John (Harrow, West) van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Parris, Matthew Viggers, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Wakeham, John
Patten, John (Oxford) Waldegrave, Hon William
Pattie, Geoffrey Walker, B. (Perth )
Pawsey, James Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Percival, Sir Ian Wall, Sir Patrick
Pink, R. Bonner Waller, Gary
Pollock, Alexander Walters, Dennis
Porter, Barry Ward, John
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) Warren, Kenneth
Proctor, K. Harvey Wells, Bowen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rathbone, Tim Wheeler, John
Rees-Davies, W. R. Whitney, Raymond
Renton, Tim Wickenden, Keith
Rhodes James, Robert Wiggin, Jerry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Wilkinson, John
Rifkind, Malcolm Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Winterton, Nicholas
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) Wolfson, Mark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rossi, Hugh
Rost, Peter Tellers for the Noes:
Royle, Sir Anthony Mr. Anthony Berry and
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. Mr. Carol Mather.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 22 agreed to.

Forward to