§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That any Act resulting from the London Regional Transport Bill—
1. May authorise the Secretary of State—
(1) to make levies on the rating authorities for all rating areas comprised in Greater London for the purpose of recovering a contribution from the ratepayers of Greater London towards his estimated expenditure in any year on grants under that Act to the body to be known by virtue of that Act as London Regional Transport;
(2) to require that body to pay to him any excess of revenues over charges (as determined by that Act) in respect of any accounting year (within the meaning of that Act) of that body, so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements;
(3) to require the Greater London Council—
2. May provide for the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
In this resolution 'year' (except in the expression 'accounting year') means a period of twelve months beginning with 1 April.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I rise to make a number of crucial points on this resolution, which, it is clear, deals with a precept imposed by the Government on the ratepayers of London for transport purposes. As I say, it raises some crucial issues to which London Members at least should pay careful attention. I do not wish to delay the House at this hour, and I shall keep within the narrow terms of the resolution.
It is clear from the resolution that any excess of revenue over charges required by London Regional Transport will go to the Secretary of State. Presumably that means that when the revenue exceeds the costs in any year, the surplus will be acquired by the Treasury. Let us consider the situation that London Transport faces today. In this year's finances, the outturn is different from that predicted. Earnings from travel cards are £30 million more than was predicted when the budgeting was done for this financial year. With London Transport being governed by the GLC, that money is available to the ratepayers and the GLC may be taken into account in considering the rate precept by the GLC, or it may be used for the improvement of transport facilities.
The resolution before the House means that, because of the London Regional Transport Bill, any surplus revenues will not go to London ratepayers. It is possible that the figures for a given year will turn out to be different from the projected estimates, and where there is a surplus that money will go to the Treasury. That will represent a transport tax on Londoners.
Is it fair— is it acceptable to the House — that we should pass a Ways and Means resolution which allows the Government to put a rate precept on Londoners without any accountability at the ballot box, unlike what happens with the present GLC? I note that a similar state of affairs applies to the Metropolitan police, who, I gather, have a right to a separate precept, provided that the Home Secretary agrees. They are obliged to check with the 934 borough treasurers, who are forced to pay the precept, but they are accountable also to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
We are about to "nationalise" London Transport, and the same checks are not available in respect of the transport rate precept which we are considering in the resolution. Clearly, therefore, an important principle about surpluses earned by London Transport arises, namely, whether those surpluses should go straight into the Consolidated Fund and the Treasury, or whether the ratepayers of London should be entitled at least to claim back that proportion of the rate precept that is not spent on transport. It is an important point which cannot be ignored.
The debate on the Bill did not make clear how much ratepayers will have to pay for transport when it is administered by the Department of Transport. Whether they are paying 50 or 66 per cent. of the cost, ratepayers will be interested to know how that money is spent. Any surpluses should go to the ratepayers. They are to be denied the checks that exist with the present local authority system of challenging councillors or throwing them out al elections. Ratepayers will have only the House, probably under the negative procedure, in which to discuss their right to the provision of a local transport service.
It is clear that the Treasury will not lose. If the system which the Bill provides turns London Transport, as the Government hope and the Opposition doubt, into a glowing success, presumably there will be a surplus. The resolution makes it clear that the surplus will accrue to the Treasury. If the system is a disaster and the Government's hopes are not realised, as the Opposition believe will be the case, it will cost considerably more, for the reasons that we have discussed this evening. The ratepayers are likely to have to pay the extra because the Secretary of State has the right under the Bill to levy a precept upon London ratepayers. They will be dissatisfied with the system if there is no accountability.
The Treasury will not lose, because if the system is a disaster and ratepayers have to pay more, the Bill says that the effect on public expenditure will be broadly neutral. Clearly the Government do not envisage the Treasury picking up the tab. If the scheme is a disaster and costs more, the Secretary of State will have only to increase the precept and the ratepayers will have to pay more for the Government's expensive mistakes. The Bill and the resolution are designed to ensure that the Treasury does not gain or lose but that London ratepayers will carry the burden.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised an interesting point. He did not quote the words of the resolution, which says:
so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements.There is no automatic clawback to the Treasury; there is an element of judgment. We should consider the overall effect of the resolution, on the ratepayers about whom the hon. Member seems to be so worried. The GLC did not seem very accountable——
§ Mr. PrescottThere are elections.
§ Mr. BottomleyIf elections count, the 1983 election when we stood for the abolition of the GLC and the removal of London Transport is the most recent.
§ Mr. BottomleyThere did not seem to be much accountability by the GLC when it took decisions which stopped London ratepayers from having the advantage of the rate support grant, or when fares were reduced and then increased. The GLC's estimate of the number of people who would buy a travelcard was not that brilliant. London ratepayers, travellers and electors will benefit from increased aid from the Treasury towards the subsidies, and as London Transport's costs start to decrease the need for subsidies will decline.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)The motion before us is in the name of a Treasury Minister, but the Minister before us is the Secretary of State for Transport, although perhaps it is most appropriate that he should be the Minister here. If one uses an ancient phrase,
The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.His previous emanations and predilections have stamped the Bill and the motion more of the Treasury than of Transport.Most of the debate has been about money, whether it be fares, profits, loans, guarantees or now a compulsory return of surplus revenue to the Treasury. We must therefore be very much aware of the extent to which the Treasury is taking direct control of London Transport. Nobody would believe that a future Secretary of State for Transport will be a free agent in the matter. From the Bill and the money resolution it is clear that the Treasury will take a much greater interest in the affairs of London Transport than before. That is where we know only too well a great deal of power lies.
No fewer than 12 clauses in the Bill relate to finance. The major one, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is clause 13, which gives the Secretary of State power to precept on London boroughs which have already received rate support grant from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The only thing is that because of this resolution, if there is a surplus at the end of the year, money which has been forwarded by ratepayers and by the Secretary of State for the Environment will be clawed back into Whitehall by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. In other words, that money will not he available to London Regional Transport for putting better bus services in new areas, improving them in my dockland area of Newham, providing better facilities for the disabled, more dial-a-ride schemes or whatever it is.
Why has the provision to return the money to the Treasury been put in the Bill? The Secretary of State for Transport owes us an explanation. I shall give him an explanation and let him deny it if he can. Of all the other financial constraints and constraints of direction as to policy with which London Regional Transport will be hedged, the final one of finance is here tied up because there will be no possibility for it over the years to create a surplus of money with which to do what it thinks best in the interests of London Regional Transport. In other words, the Treasury and central Government have got virtually complete control. If that is not the reason why this resolution is down, let the Secretary of State say so.
936 There is something else to which the Secretary of State may have to reply because I think it is in order to raise it. Under the financial provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State and London Regional Transport, or it with his permission, may provide all sorts of goodies. It may give guarantees, it may make loans, and it may make grants to its subsidiaries, people who are supposed to be operating under private enterprise for the good of the community. Under clause 19 lower interest rates may be charged for moneys borrowed. In other words, the Secretary of State is scattering around financial patronage where he chooses. That is a considerable power.
It is clear that profits will be engineered. Despite the fact that the money has to come from the ratepayers and from central Government, profits will be made. The Secretary of State will ensure by statute that profits are made: a new concept—profits by statute. How can the ratepayers, the citizens of London and perhaps the House, to which the Secretary of State and his successors will be responsible, check on what is happening to all this money? It may be said that it can be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and a Select Committee, but under clause 24 the Comptroller and Auditor General is specifically excluded from the operations of London Regional Transport. As this is a finance matter relating to moneys going back — which otherwise the Comptroller and Auditor General could examine if he wished — the Secretary of State owes us an explanation. If he refuses, we can conclude that the objects of the Bill are not the ones he gave but rather the objects of finance to make profits for some and to make the public pay.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)It is right that the principle behind the resolution should be challenged most forcefully. As was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), another totally unaccountable body will levy a tax on the people using a service. There will be a precept from a body which, so far as we know, will be composed of business men to run a business rather than people to run a service. It has long been a principle that local services should be governed by the right of the local people to determine who shall operate them and how they shall spend the money.
We are talking about 7 million Londoners. This matter is not primarily of concern to the nation as a whole. London is not simply our capital city; it is the home and place of work of the 7 million people who live here. It therefore comes ill from this Government to propose that those people will be denied the chance to have a say in the control of the money that is charged to them for this service.
For constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), this is the second local government service to be removed from democratic control. Two years ago, democratic control of planning provisions was removed from the docklands authority, and only the other week the Secretary of State confirmed that that body would continue to meet behind closed doors. There was no sign in tonight's debate that this new unaccountable body would open its doors to allow the doubly-paying public—even if they do not use the service—to see what is going on.
Despite what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) suggested, matters such as the raising of levies 937 by rating authorities were determined not in June, when people voted on national issues, but by the people of London voting on local issues.
Apart from the fundamental abrogation of the democratic control by which the country is governed, there is a second provision in paragraph 1(2). It is left totally to the Secretary of State—with no criteria at all to guide him or that will let people know which way he will be guided — to determine the surplus over and above the LRT's requirements. The problem is that the Secretary of State will have to take account of many other considerations, apart from the requirements of the users. If one looks at an underground map of my constituency, one will see that it is a white hole and little else, but the Secretary of State will have to consider more than just whether such areas should have different or expanded services.
It is wrong that annually the right hon. Gentleman should be able to get away with a quick excursion to the House which will not allow proper accountability. There will be no opportunity for London Members to get more than an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, which he will not even have to justify or explain. He will be able to give as bland and unacceptable an answer as he wishes, because at the end of a one-and-a-half-hour or two-hour debate his hon. Friends will vote in favour of his order.
That is not the way in which the excesses, surpluses and revenue of London Transport should be debated. We know how big a commercial undertaking it is. The Minister of State said that only 23 bodies in Britain had a larger budget. This is not the way in which to exercise the only democratic and accountable control. A fundamental decision whether the finances should be left with the service or siphoned off to be used elsewhere, although they had been paid to be used for that specific purpose—use in London Transport—should not be left to a one-and-ahalf-hour debate per year.
That shows the fundamental flaw in the financial management of the Bill and the concept that drives it forward. Londoners will be dissatisfied unless they are given the opportunity, which the Bill does not even hint at and the motion does not suggest, of knowing that they can bring to book the Secretary of State, whose interests, sadly, will be not with the service to Londoners but with his party throughout the country, and particularly not here.
§ Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that a group of business men would make the levy, but the motion states clearly that it is the Secretary of State.
Opposition Members made one telling point on any surplus that may go back to the Treasury. As a member of the Select Committee that spent 18 months looking at London's transport, I was struck forcibly by the fact that there had been insufficient investment in London Transport for too many years. If there is a surplus in any one year, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take that surplus into account in the next year and see that we can get sufficient investment in future, which perhaps we cannot afford at the moment? In the long run, it is not fares that decide a good public transport system but efficiency and regularity of service. That is what attracts long-term passenger use. Any Government or system that ignores that will have a recurring problem with public transport. That lesson has come from city after city 938 throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance about how those surpluses will be applied in the years after they are exacted from London's fare-paying passengers?
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)Conservative Members representing Greater London never cease to astonish me by their craven acquiescence to any Government policy that damages both the interests and rights of the people whom they claim to represent.
The proposition in the Bill, the money order and the Ways and Means Resolution iare a new tax on Londoners. It is totally unprecedented in Britain for a Minister of the Crown to be able to impose a local rate precept on the people in a particular area. There is one example of a non-elected body imposing a precept — the Metropolitan police. Hallowed by time, and with a House of Commons that paid a little more attention to the interests of the people who have to pick up the bill, the House of Commons in former times has come up with a system that provides greater protection for London ratepayers, even over the Metropolitan police, than the Government now propose.
Through a fairly complicated procedure, the Receiver of the Metropolitan police has to submit estimates to the Home Secretary, who has to approve those estimates. The receiver has to consult a representative body of borough treasurers about the level of the precept that he is proposing. The borough treasurers and the authorities have a right to make representations to the Home Secretary before he approves the expenditure and the precept that goes with it. Moreover, previous Parliaments have wisely insisted that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have a hand in the process and be permitted to investigate what is going on. The Public Accounts Committee is also permitted to look into the matter if it feels like doing so or is prompted by hon. Members.
There are no such protections in the measures that the House is considering today. The Comptroller and Auditor General is specifically excluded, as is the Public Accounts Committee. The Secretary of State might, if he fancies, consult local authorities. The present Secretary of State probably will not fancy such consultation, bearing in mind the type of person he is. As a result, there will be no consultation, so there is no protection.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that the Secretary of State's proposal has been endorsed by the electorate in London. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have spent part of today ploughing through the election addresses of Conservative candidates in the general election who stood for seats in London. Not one of them said that he intended to introduce a measure which allowed the Secretary of State to impose a rate precept on Londoners instead of rates being levied by local authorities which are locally accountable.
This is a bad novelty which Tory Members, especially those who claim to represent London, ought strongly to oppose. The fact remains that the Secretary of State, who is prepared to take central powers in these matters, utterly refuses to assuage the fears of pensioners and disabled people in London by refusing to take the necessary powers to provide concessionary fares for them. He has refused to do that because his only interest is in his own job. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that when the London 939 Broadcasting Company interviewed him last night, he was introduced as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It obviously has his number.
In the 18th century, the Government were described as oligarchy moderated by riot. The Conservative party learnt to dislike the London mob because it occasionally stopped it from doing just what it wanted. It is clear that the Conservative party now regards most of the people who live in London as a regenerated London mob. We are faced with a proposal which allows the Government, not locally elected people, to levy a rate precept. We shall soon be faced with a proposition that the Secretary of State for Education and Science should be able to run Inner London's education service. We are also faced with a proposition that the Secretary of State for the Environment should determine the level of rates in London's boroughs and the quantity of services that they provide, apparently because the Government think that the ordinary people of London are unfit to elect people to run London and its boroughs. If no Tory Members from London constituencies oppose this disgraceful measure, they will merely confirm what a craven, rotten, lousy lot they are.
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)I wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in regard to the necessity for proper long-term investment. I want to make a political point. Under the Conservative administration of Sir Horace Cutler at County hall, there was such a run-down that London buses were not replaced. One of the results was that Park Royal Vehicles Ltd., which has made London's red double-decker buses for 50 years, had to close. It was not until there was a change of administration in County hall that the necessary investment was made. The result was orders for 600 buses to replenish the much-depleted fleet.
I was pleased that assurances were asked for about investment. The Conservative administration did not provide adequate investment for the replenishment of London's buses.
§ 11 pm
§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the Bill removed from local government its planning and transport functions. Throughout the debate, nearly every Opposition Member has urged the Government to remove from local authorities their function of providing concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
§ Mr. Simon HughesIf the Secretary of State lived in London, he would realise that many people face difficulties in limiting their lives to one borough. London consists of 32 boroughs. Unlike the position in many other authorities where people move and live in a small community, London does not work in that way. Borough boundaries cross roads between one's house and shopping area. Concessionary fares on a London-wide basis have a logic that does not affect borough decisions.
§ Mr. RidleyThe hon. Gentleman, as with all Liberal Members, is trying to have it both ways. When it suits the hon. Gentleman's book to accuse the Government of taking away local government functions, he complains, 940 but when it suits his book to ask the Government to take away local government functions and they will not, he again complains.
The major issue raised by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey, for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) involved the accountability of the rate precept. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the Metropolitan police was an example of rate precepting. Once again, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was wrong in what he said. LRT does not have a right to precept on the rates. That function will be performed by the Secretary of State—me. The Home Secretary does not have a right to precept on the rates when dealing with the Metropolitan police. More accountability will exist as the Government and not the individual bodies will make the precept.
The Government will make an annual order in the House on which a debate may take place embodying the rate precept in terms of a rate poundage. That is where the accountability takes place. A greater level of accountability exists for the LRT than for the Metropolitan police. I must bring hon. Members back to reality as LRT will be similar to a typical Herbert Morrisonian nationalised industry. I have no wish to score points in either direction. Some hon. Gentlemen have tried to score points against me. I heard in the debate for the first time Opposition Members scoring points against a standard nationalised industry. Perhaps we can bury that hatchet during the argument.
A standard nationalised industry is not controlled politically day to day but is given its objectives, about which the statutes are clear. Parliament has the opportunity to debate them when their borrowing limits are raised or, as in this instance, it has an annual debate on the precept. Parliament also has an opportunity to debate this matter on any occasion when the Opposition wish to raise the matter, be it a Supply day or any other available opportunity. Those are the ways in which nationalised industries are accountable, and that is what London Regional Transport will become. It is astonishing that Labour Members, who designed the measures of accountability for all the other nationalised industries, including British Rail, the British Gas Corporation and so on, and thought them satisfactory, should start to complain now.
I was asked about the resolution by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. He pointed out that paragraph 1(2) of the resolution authorised payment into the Consolidated Fund of any surplus that London Regional Transport might make in any particular year. However, it does not compel London Regional Transport to pay over its surplus. That would be a matter for ministerial decision. In practice, the Government may well feel it right to leave any surplus in reserve with London Regional Transport.
The system will be as follows. In any given year an estimate will be made of the subsidy needed by London Regional Transport which will be based on its own budget and plans. At the end of the year, having levied that amount partly through the rate and partly through taxes, the sum will be determined, and may be slightly more or less than previously estimated, and paid over. Consequently, the figures will be adjusted next year. That 941 is how it will work. There is no question of the Treasury making a profit at the expense of ratepayers, or of its pocketing surpluses, as has been suggested.
That power must exist, because there may be circumstances in which rebates are due both to the Government and to the ratepayer. Rebates to the Government can be made by means of the power in the resolution, while rebates to the ratepayer can be made by reducing the rate precept the following year.
§ Mr. DobsonIf it is highly unlikely that any surplus will ever accrue to the Treasury, why is the Secretary of State bothering with this resolution? The Secretary of State can abate his grant or that of the Secretary of State for the Environment to London Transport for the future year, or he can abate the rates in future years. There is no need for the Secretary of State to give himself the power to hand the money over to the Treasury.
§ Mr. RidleyThe hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There could well be circumstances in which it would be right to do so. As with this year, there could be a surplus of about £30 million over the grant provided for London Transport. It might be thought desirable for the Treasury to keep that, and to readjust the sum the following year. In those circumstances, such a power would be necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made an important point. The difference between the present investment position for London Transport and the future under the Bill is that London Regional Transport will borrow to cover its normal investment, just as any other nationalised industry does. It will be subject to an external financing limit but, as with British Rail, that limit will be perfectly adequate for all reasonable investment needs. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill to frustrate proper investment by London Regional Transport. The two should not be mixed up.
A distressing aspect of the Opposition's case is that they do not seem to distinguish between revenue subsidies and investment — [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had better manners. He has been shouting all afternoon.
In view of my explanation, I hope that the House will accept the resolution.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 165.
944| Division No. 96] | [11.9 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Biggs-Davison, Sir John |
| Alexander, Richard | Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Body, Richard |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Bottomley, Peter |
| Amess, David | Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) |
| Ancram, Michael | Boyson, Dr Rhodes |
| Arnold, Tom | Braine, Sir Bernard |
| Ashby, David | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Bright, Graham |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Brinton, Tim |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Baldry, Anthony | Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Browne, John |
| Batiste, Spencer | Bryan, Sir Paul |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. |
| Bellingham, Henry | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Bendall, Vivian | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Burt, Alistair |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Butcher, John |
| Best, Keith | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Chope, Christopher | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Irving, Charles |
| Cockeram, Eric | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Colvin, Michael | Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Conway, Derek | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Coombs, Simon | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Cope, John | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Corrie, John | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Couchman, James | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Crouch, David | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Knowles, Michael |
| Dunn, Robert | Knox, David |
| Durant, Tony | Lamont, Norman |
| Eggar, Tim | Lang, Ian |
| Evennett, David | Latham, Michael |
| Eyre, Reginald | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Farr, John | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Favell, Anthony | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Lester, Jim |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Lightbown, David |
| Forman, Nigel | Lilley, Peter |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Fox, Marcus | Lord, Michael |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Freeman, Roger | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fry, Peter | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Gale, Roger | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Galley, Roy | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Maclean, David John. |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Gow, Ian | Madel, David |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Major, John |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Malins, Humfrey |
| Greenway, Harry | Malone, Gerald |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | Maples, John |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Marland, Paul |
| Grist, Ian | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Ground, Patrick | Mates, Michael |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Maude, Francis |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Hannam, John | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Mellor, David |
| Harvey, Robert | Merchant, Piers |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Hayward, Robert | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Heddle, John | Moate, Roger |
| Henderson, Barry | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hickmet, Richard | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Hicks, Robert | Moore, John |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Hill, James | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Hirst, Michael | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Mudd, David |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Neubert, Michael |
| Hooson, Tom | Newton, Tony |
| Hordern, Peter | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Howard, Michael | Norris, Steven |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Oppenheim, Philip | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Osborn, Sir John | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Stokes, John |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Sumberg, David |
| Pawsey, James | Tapsell, Peter |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Pollock, Alexander | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Porter, Barry | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Powley, John | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Price, Sir David | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Thurnham, Peter |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Tracey, Richard |
| Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) | Trippier, David |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Viggers, Peter |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Rost, Peter | Walden, George |
| Rowe, Andrew | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) |
| Ryder, Richard | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Waller, Gary |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Walters, Dennis |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Ward, John |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Watson, John |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Watts, John |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Shersby, Michael | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Silvester, Fred | Wheeler, John |
| Sims, Roger | Whitfield, John |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Whitney, Raymond |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Speller, Tony | Wood, Timothy |
| Spence, John | Woodcock, Michael |
| Spencer, D. | Yeo, Tim |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Squire, Robin | |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stanley, John | Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
| Steen, Anthony | |
| Stern, Michael |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Alton, David | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Clarke, Thomas |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Clay, Robert |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) |
| Barnett, Guy | Cohen, Harry |
| Barron, Kevin | Coleman, Donald |
| Beith, A. J. | Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Cook, Frank (Stockton North) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
| Blair, Anthony | Corbett, Robin |
| Boyes, Roland | Cowans, Harry |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Craigen, J. M. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Crowther, Stan |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) | Cunningham, Dr John |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) |
| Campbell, Ian | Deakins, Eric |
| Dewar, Donald | Mikardo, Ian |
| Dobson, Frank | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Dormand, Jack | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Douglas, Dick | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Eadie, Alex | Nellist, David |
| Eastham, Ken | O'Brien, William |
| Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Park, George |
| Fatchett, Derek | Parry, Robert |
| Faulds, Andrew | Patchett, Terry |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Pendry, Tom |
| Flannery, Martin | Penhaligon, David |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Pike, Peter |
| Forrester, John | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Foster, Derek | Prescott, John |
| Foulkes, George | Radice, Giles |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Randall, Stuart |
| Garrett, W. E. | Redmond, M. |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Gould, Bryan | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Hardy, Peter | Robertson, George |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Home Robertson, John | Ryman, John |
| Howells, Geraint | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Skinner, Dennis |
| John, Brynmor | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| Kennedy, Charles | Snape, Peter |
| Kirkwood, Archibald | Soley, Clive |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Spearing, Nigel |
| Leighton, Ronald | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Stott, Roger |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Strang, Gavin |
| Litherland, Robert | Straw, Jack |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Loyden, Edward | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| McGuire, Michael | Tinn, James |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| McKelvey, William | Wallace, James |
| Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Wareing, Robert |
| McTaggart, Robert | Welsh, Michael |
| McWilliam, John | White, James |
| Madden, Max | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Marek, Dr John | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Martin, Michael | |
| Maxton, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes. |
| Meadowcroft, Michael | |
| Michie, William |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the London Regional Transport Bill—
1. May authorise the Secretary of State—
(1) to make levies on the rating authorities for all rating areas comprised in Greater London for the purpose of recovering a contribution from the ratepayers of Greater London towards his estimated expenditure in any year on grants under that Act to the body to be known by virtue of that Act as London Regional Transport;
(2) to require that body to pay him any excess of revenues over charges (as determined by that Act) in respect of any accounting year (within the meaning of that Act) of that body, so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements;
945
(3) to require the Greater London Council—
2. May provide for the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
In this resolution 'year' (except in the expression 'accounting year') means a period of twelve months beginning with 1 April.