HC Deb 08 March 1983 vol 38 cc773-82

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before giving any consent in terms of section 3 of this Act, to cause any proposal to construct or extend a nuclear powered generating station to lay a Report before Parliament containing the details of any such proposal within one month of receiving it.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause relates to one of the important features of the Bill, clause 3, which deals with the permission that the Minister must give for any project to build a private nuclear power station. Some will find the notion of a private nuclear power station a quite alarming prospect. The Opposition put themselves in that category.

So far the development of nuclear power in Britain has been wholly within the public sector, although internationally that has not always been the case. However, most countries are dominated by public sector projects.

The Government have said that they are freeing the private sector from some legal inhibitions so that there can be private sector power stations. They take the argument further, and say that if there is to be a private nuclear power station it needs special ministerial consent under clause 3. At one stage, the Government sought to argue, a little disingenuously, that it was possible for a person to apply to build a nuclear power station and that they were imposing some control by requiring ministerial consent. But until the Bill was introduced it was not possible to generate electricity for use as a main business on any basis—neither nuclear nor non-nuclear. Because that inhibition is removed by the Bill, it opens the door to the possibility of the building of a private sector nuclear power station for the generation of electricity as a main business. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State for Energy yet again muttering from a sedentary position. I think that he keeps muttering "Ridiculous" as I explain what his Bill means. He may be quite right. I think the Bill is ridiculous. I have not been arguing, I have merely been describing, and it is odd that even at this late stage the Secretary of State finds the description of his own Bill ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree with his very wise assessment of the proposition before the House.

Surely one thing we can be clear about is that very few people would think it desirable to have a private nuclear power project. It is not likely to happen. The lead times are enormous in all major energy projects. They are particularly long, and necessarily so, in nuclear power generation. The inquiry at Sizewell into the PWR plant which is proposed there is considering some very longterm-projections of energy supply. It would be a very bold person indeed who would contemplate the massive investment that is involved in a private nuclear power project and calculate and assess energy demand 10 years or so from now. Frankly, it is beyond the capacity of the private sector to embark upon a major private nuclear power project.

That makes it all the less sensible for the Government to contemplate the possibility. It is not likely to happen, but we ought to make it clear that it should not happen. We ought to take a decision that we will keep nuclear power firmly within the public sector. The containment of nuclear power within the public sector is a guarantee to the public that the necessary safety factors will be observed. I think that the public generally would be surprised to find that there was thought of moving in any other direction.

I believe in the balanced development of nuclear power. I do not think that this country has to rush its fences in the development of nuclear power, unlike some other countries which do not have the supplies of gas, oil and coal that fortunately we are blessed with in this country. Therefore, we can provide with some caution and care for the safety factors which the public demand in respect of nuclear power. To introduce a new joker into the pack—the possibility of a private nuclear power station—is to raise public concern and to cause doubts to enter the minds of the public about the observation of safety factors.

I know that it will be said that there is an inspectorate and a very competent inspectorate, which enforces the highest standards, and no doubt these should be applied to any project. Since we know, however, that it is not really a practical possibility to have a private nuclear power station, and since I think we can agree that it has the possibility at least of causing unnecessary public concern. there is very little point in contemplating it. It would be wisest to make it quite clear, and to do it as a matter of political consensus, that there should not be a private nuclear power station project.

Mr. Skeet

I ask the hon. Gentleman to assume that a company decided to build a very small nuclear power station. If it did that and if, by accident, his party was elected in the next general election, would he nationalise that power station?

Mr. Smith

I do not 'think that will happen between now and then, but I would most certainly make sure that it came back into the public sector. I have stated a principle to which I wish to adhere and to which I am sure my party wishes to adhere, which is that nuclear power generation should be wholly within the public sector, and we should maintain that as a principle for the development of our energy policy. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman is, "Yes, we would take it back into the public sector if that were to happen."

The proposition in the new clause is that we ought to have a report to Parliament in respect of any applications made to the Minister under clause 3. This would allow some parliamentary control to be brought to bear on the situation and, if we did gel: such an approach, there would be an opportunity for Parliament to consider it and to debate the report laid before it. That seems to me to be a desirable extension of parliamentary control over the executive in an area which is particularly sensitive to public opinion. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the new clause.

8.45 pm
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

I agree with the intention and wording of new clause 9, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it if the Government are foolish enough to cause a Division by refusing to incorporate it in the Bill.

As we made clear on Second Reading and at great length in Committee, however, the proposal in the new clause does not go far enough. We believe that a new Bill should be required if private sector nuclear generation were to be allowed. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) on that. The official Opposition however, made it clear in Committee and reiterated beyond peradventure today that private industry should not be allowed to generate electricity through nuclear energy. We do not take that position.

We take the view that the Bill should in no way allow the Secretary of State to permit any kind of nuclear generation in the private sector. We believe that such a development would be so important as to warrant separate legislation, even if it were a one-clause Bill. I do not know why the Secretary of State is laughing. A Bill would at least require a Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading, as well as the comments of the other place. In other words, it would require an extensive public debate on the proposal for the first private company to generate nuclear energy which, in our view, would be a major new step in relation to nuclear energy in the past quarter of a century.

We do not regard the nuclear debate lightly. I am surprised that some hon. Members think that the general public are not interested. In our view, the new clause does not go far enough. We all know what happens to reports submitted to Parliament by Secretaries of State. Sometimes it does not suit the Opposition to debate them. Well-intentioned though it is, the new clause is not an adequate instrument to deal with the situation, but it is the only instrument to hand today.

In view of what was said in Committee, it is impossible to amend the Bill at this stage to take our fundamental point into account. If there had been a different Minister on Second Reading, or if the Minister had reacted differently in Committee, the Government might have been persuaded to concede that the Bill should not touch the licensing of private companies to generate electricity by nuclear energy. In the early stages, that might have been possible. Certainly we argued strongly on Second Reading, and some but not all Ministers took us seriously, that the subject should be a matter for parliamentary debate in extenso.

The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North has done us a favour in proposing one more step. The then Under-Secretary of State boasted that the Bill was an improvement on the previous statute in that the Secretary of State would now have to licence any private nuclear power stations. I agree that the Bill is an improvement in that respect. The new clause would further improve the situation, but it does not meet our fundamental criticism. The British people want substantial public inquiries for Sizewell and any similar proposal and they want full parliamentary consideration of the matter. The new clause is good, but it is not enough. Perhaps it is too late for Ministers to change their minds, but I still hope that they may.

Mr. Skeet

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the private Bill procedure should be used if a private operator wishes to set up a nuclear power station, or is he saying that a full inquiry of the Sizewell type would be required to satisfy his constituents?

Dr. Mabon

As the hon. Gentleman should know, if the Bill is passed in its present form—with or without the new clause—a full planning inquiry and the full panoply of the nuclear installations inspectorate would be involved in any case. Enormous hoops would have to be jumped through by the private company concerned. That is why it is incredible to make out that there would not be time to introduce new legislation. It would not be a private Bill. I hope that the Minister will discourage any attempt at private legislation in this regard and insist on a public Bill sponsored enthusiastically by the Government. The Government would have to be convinced that it was the right time for private industry to enter nuclear power generation. The Government would then ensure that all the safeguards were observed. That is the essential point that we are making.

I want to be fair to the Government—though they are not always fair to us—and say that, even if they are persuaded by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North to accept new clause 9, for which I and my hon. Friends will vote, it would not be enough to make the Bill acceptable. This fundamental step can be taken only by Parliament.

Mr. Palmer

If I remember correctly, the Social Democratic party, small though it is, did not vote against the Bill.

Dr. Mabon

It is a great sadness to me that we are often criticised by people who have not read the record. The record is there to be seen. If hon. Members read the debate on Second Reading closely they will see what we said. The official Opposition were distressed that we voted for the Bill on Second Reading. I must be fair to Ministers. We were not given any encouragement on Second Reading to believe that Ministers would change their minds. We did not understand, either from private conversations or in Committee, that Ministers would concede our point. We warned the Government that consequently we could not vote on Third Reading for a Bill that allows this proposal without further parliamentary process in the form of a public Bill.

Mr. John Smith

If clause 3 is as crucial to the alliance as the right hon. Gentleman says, why was there the extraordinary circumstance that neither the Liberal Member nor the right hon. Gentleman were in Committee during the debate on clause 3 and did not vote?

Dr. Mabon

In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that he was not present during the first few sittings of the Committee because he was not a member of it.

Mr. Smith

Who, me?

Dr. Mabon

As far as I remember, the right hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Smith

I was.

Dr. Mabon

Very well, the right hon. Gentleman was on the Committee. I ask him, therefore, to refresh his memory about the debate on clause 1. The debate on this matter was taken with clause 1. During the debates on clause 3, the right hon. Gentleman complained that the matter should have been taken then. However, the voting had taken place on clause 1.

I shall not read the speeches again. It would take another two hours to recite all the comments and complaints that we were taking too long. I made it clear then, and I am making it clear again tonight, that I support the right hon. Gentleman, but he is doing his best to persuade me not to support him. Unless the Government make a fundamental change in another place and remove any reference to private industry being allowed to generate nuclear electricity, we should not be able to support the Bill. If those changes were made, we should want to support it.

The Bill has many advantages. However, even with this new clause, it does not satisfy us. We are not taking sides. We believe that the full parliamentary process should be undertaken before we assent to private industry taking part in nuclear generation. The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North and his hon. Friends say that they would not support such a Bill in any circumstances. We argued at great length that there may be circumstances where it would be valid for private industry to embark on nuclear generation. We were only willing to agree to that in certain circumstances—who, when, what, where and why. We even asked questions in Committee about the possible sponsoring industry, boiling it down to three or four options. All these matters, we felt, should be brought within legislation. It should not be a matter of debating reports, questioning the Secretary of State about licensing decisions, hoping that the nuclear installations inspectorate will stop it or seeing that planning inquiries are conducted. That is the case that we have been making.

I welcome the new clause, but it is still not adequate. I plead with the Government to examine the matter again. Is it not possible for the Government, even at this late stage, to change their mind and to say that private industry generating nuclear electricity should be licensed by a separate Bill, not by this back-door method.

Mr. John Moore

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) will not mind if I refresh his memory of Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who has not graced us with a Liberal party presence today, said: It is clear that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties are united. We are in favour of the Bill but opposed fundamentally to clause 3".—[Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 903.] The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North may also wish to be reminded of the vote in Committee at the seventh sitting—when we were not blessed with the company of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties—on the fundamental clause 3 that we had been told would determine their attitude towards the whole Bill. It was a key clause but they were not present with the official Opposition to vote.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

Will the Minister now read those parts of the Second Reading debate when I suggested that it would be possible to amend clauses 1, 2, and 3—[Interruption]. I was present on Second Reading. I am referring to my speech on Second Reading. I am asking the Minister to give the quotation and also the references to sittings in Committee on clauses 1 and 2 concerning this matter.

Mr. Moore

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, who is clearly getting into difficult water. We had been led to believe—I can quote only the Second Reading—that there was an alliance and that the alliance had made it clear that clause 3 was the key. It was therefore not surprising that hon. Members serving on the Committee found those absences so odd when it came to the actual vote. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman was present during discussions on clauses 1 and 2. It was, however, on clause 3, when the Opposition honourably sought to divide the Committee, that the alliance parties were absent.

Our discussion has confirmed the Labour party' s obsession with public ownership. I am bewildered, however, by the role and views of the official SDI) spokesman for the alliance. It seems that alliance members cannot make up their minds on the principles whether private or public ownership is viable. They are legitimately concerned about their own inability to get together on nuclear power. Out of it all has emerged art unusual ducking of decisions and principles. Instead they have embraced the new principle of introducing a Bill. There is no view. Somewhere between now and never, there is the undertaking to introduce a Bill. This is apparently a policy argument upon which the alliance feels able to associate itself with the official Opposition.

The new clause shows a complete failure by its movers to understand the system of licensing and the protection that exists in the United Kingdom to ensure safe nuclear power. As we have often stated in Committee and on Second Reading, it is not the ownership of plant that governs this but the regulatory control system. It is crucial to get this on the record. The evident strength of that control system in the United Kingdom gives us safe nuclear power.

9 pm

First, any proposal for a private nuclear station would come before the Secretary of State for consent under the new procedure in the If the Secretary of State considered it desirable, he could cause an inquiry to be held. I shall come back to that later. If consent is granted the Secretary of State could impose any necessary conditions regarding, for example, the safeguarding of nuclear fuel and security generally.

Secondly, the proposal for any nuclear power station—this is crucial as the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North rightly observed—would come be fore the nuclear installations inspectorate, which would have to grant a nuclear site licence. The proposal would receive detailed and thorough scrutiny from the inspectorate, which is experienced in all matters relating to nuclear safety. No nuclear power reactor may be constructed or operated without a nuclear site licence granted by the NH, which carries out a monitoring process that starts at the initial planning stage, continues throughout the design, engineering and commissioning stages, covers the operation of the plant throughout its lifetime and ends only when, after decommissioning, there is no longer considered to be any radiation hazard at the site. Staff, members of the public and the environment generally, are protected against the risks associated with nuclear material.

I have spoken before of the crucial role that the NII plays in this process, but it may be useful if I remind the House of the way in which the inspectorate operates, and in particular of the independent nature of the inspectorate. The NII forms part of the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is a unique organisation independent, not only of all other Government Departments but of Ministers in its day-to-day operation. The commission provides, through its executive, independent advice to the Government on all aspects of industrial safety including nuclear safety.

Thirdly, the private generator would have to apply for planning permission and would be subject to all the planning procedures of the local authority and the Department of the Environment. A local authority may impose conditions on the granting of planning permission. If there are sufficient objections to a proposal, a public inquiry is usually called. If planning permission is refused, the developer can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment who may also call in for decision by him an application made to the local authority. In this case, a public inquiry will be held and the Secretary of State will usually impose conditions.

The most important scrutiny of a private nuclear proposal will, of course, take place when a nuclear site licence application is being considered, and the framework governing nuclear safety applies equally to the public and private sectors. Given this background, what role could Parliament be expected to play? What expertise does it have in comparison with fully trained personnel whose role is to monitor every step of the development of a nuclear power station?

Mr. Palmer

I gather that the Minister was saying that the nuclear inspectorate would look at the site licence and make an assessment of the proposal before the local planning inquiry started. Is he aware that the nuclear inspectorate is not ready with its assessment on Sizewell?

Mr. Moore

I could go into detail on that. The hon. Gentleman, from his extensive knowledge, will know that the licensing process is a continuing process through to decommissioning. There is no point at which the NII has concluded its work. This is a crucial feature of the safety relationship.

If Parliament is to scrutinise nuclear power station proposals, should it not also examine in depth all other power station proposals and, perhaps, other developments too, which already require ministerial consent and are subject to similar monitoring and safety requirements? On what basis would it come to a decision? I am not denying the constitutional ability of Parliament, but in the assumption of a parliamentary role there is presumably the belief that Parliament could decide favourably or unfavourably on the construction or operation of a nuclear power station. I question whether Parliament could or should have the opportunity to overrule a decision of the NII—a decision that would have been taken in full knowledge and understanding of all the technical and safety factors involved. There is no suggestion of any new constitutional theory.

All I am seeking to do is to illustrate the opportunity that is being sought for Parliament potentially to overrule the very important, established NII procedures. To suggest that Parliament could properly perform that role is patently absurd. I am satisfied that there is ample opportunity for proper examination of any proposal for a private nuclear station and would ask Opposition Members to withdraw the motion and clause.

Mr. John Smith

I was surprised to hear the Minister say in the latter part of his speech that, since the experts were to be let loose on any project, that was good enough and that Parliament should therefore stand aside and let them decide. In substance, that is what was being argued. I do not doubt for a moment the expertise of the nuclear inspectorate. We are fortunate to have it in this country and it is excellent. However, Parliament will increasingly insist on playing a role in decisions, and that is precisely what the new clause offers us.

The new clause requires a report to be made to Parliament and allows it to be discussed. In the last Parliament it was important to discuss Windscale and decisions were taken after proper and full parliamentary debate. The Minister fell below his usual high standards of debate in his latter remarks, and if for no other reason than to maintain the robust independence of Parliament we shall press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 204.

Division No. 88] [9.5 pm
Adams, Allen Ford, Ben
Allaun, Frank Forrester, John
Alton, David Foster, Derek
Anderson, Donald Foulkes, George
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ashton, Joe Freud, Clement
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Ginsburg, David
Beith, A. J. Golding, John
Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp't N) Gourlay, Harry
Bidwell, Sydney Graham, Ted
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Haynes, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Heffer, Eric S.
Campbell, Ian Home Robertson, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale Homewood, William
Canavan, Dennis Hooley, Frank
Carmichael, Neil Howell, Rt Hon D.
Carter-Jones, Lewis Howells, Geraint
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hoyle, Douglas
Clarke Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie) Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Coleman, Donald Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Cook, Robin F. Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Cowans, Harry Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Crowther, Stan Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cryer, Bob Kerr, Russell
Cunliffe, Lawrence Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lambie, David
Dalyell, Tarn Leighton, Ronald
Davidson, Arthur Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Deakins, Eric Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Lyon, Alexander (York)
Dewar, Donald Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Dixon, Donald McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Dormand, Jack McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dubs, Alfred McKeivey, William
Duffy, A. E. P. MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. McNamara, Kevin
Eadie, Alex Marks, Kenneth
Eastham, Ken Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Maxton, John
English, Michael Maynard, Miss Joan
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Ewing, Harry Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Faulds, Andrew Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Flannery, Martin Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Newens, Stanley
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Stoddart, David
O'Neill, Martin Stott, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Strang, Gavin
Palmer, Arthur Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Park, George Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Pavitt, Laurie Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Race, Reg Torney, Tom
Richardson, Jo Wainwright, R.(Co1ne V)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) Wardell, Gareth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Weetch, Ken
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) Welsh, Michael
Rooker, J. W. White, Frank R.
Roper, John White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) Whitlock, William
Rowlands, Ted Wigley, Dafydd
Ryman, John Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Sever, John Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Silverman, Julius Winnick, David
Skinner, Dennis Woolmer, Kenneth
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark) Wright, Sheila
Snape, Peter Young, David (Bolton E)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel Tellers for the Ayes:
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham) Mr. George Morton and
Spriggs, Leslie Dr. Edmund Marshall.
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Aitken, Jonathan Dover, Denshore
Alexander, Richard du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Ancram, Michael Durant, Tony
Arnold, Tom Eggar, Tim
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Elliott, Sir William
Atkins, Robert (Presron N) Emery, Sir Peter
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E) Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Farr, John
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Fell, Sir Anthony
Bendall, Vivian Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Fisher, Sir Nigel
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Berry, Hon Anthony Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bevan, David Gilroy Fookes, Miss Janet
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Forman, Nigel
Blackburn, John Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Fry, Peter
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Braine, Sir Bernard Gardner, Sir Edward
Brinton, Tim Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon Goodhart, Sir Philip
Brooke, Hon Peter Goodhew, Sir Victor
Brotherton, Michael Goodlad, Alastair
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Gow, Ian
Bruce-Gardyne, John Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Budgen, Nick Greenway, Harry
Burden, Sir Frederick Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Butcher, John Grist, Ian
Butler, Hon Adam Gummer, John Selwyn
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hampson, Dr Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Hannam, John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Haselhurst, Alan
Chapman, Sydney Hawksley, Warren
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Hayhoe, Barney
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Heddle, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hicks, Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter Hill, James
Cockeram, Eric Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Colvin, Michael Hunt, David (Wirral)
Cope, John Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Costain, Sir Albert Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Cranborne, Viscount Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Critchley, Julian Jessel, Toby
Crouch, David Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dickens, Geoffrey Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen Kaberry, Sir Donald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Kimball, Sir Marcus
Knight, Mrs Jill Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Knox, David Rhodes James, Robert
Lang, Ian Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Latham, Michael Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lawrence, Ivan Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rost, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Who) St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Loveridge, John Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Luce, Richard Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lyell, Nicholas Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McCrindle, Robert Shepherd, Richard
Macfarlane, Neil Sims, Roger
McQuarrie, Albert Skeet, T. H. H.
Major, John Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marlow, Antony Speed, Keith
Marten, Rt Hon' Neil Speller, Tony
Mates, Michael Spence, John
Mather, Carol Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Sproat, Iain
Mawby, Ray Stanbrook, Ivor
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stanley, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stokes, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stradling Thomas, J
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Tapsell, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Miscampbell, Norman Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Moate, Roger Thompson, Donald
Monro, Sir Hector Thornton, Malcolm
Montgomery, Fergus Townend, John (Bridlington)
Moore, John Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Trippier, David
Murphy, Christopher van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Myles, David Waddington, David
Needham, Richard Wakeham, John
Nelson, Anthony Walker, B. (Perth)
Newton, Tony Waller, Gary
Onslow, Cranley Warren, Kenneth
Osborn, John Wells, Bowen
Page, John (Harrow, West) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Whitney, Raymond
Parris, Matthew Wickenden, Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Wilkinson, John
Patten, John (Oxford) Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Pattie, Geoffrey Winterton, Nicholas
Pawsey, James Wolfson, Mark
Percival, Sir Ian Young, Sir George (Acton)
Pink, R. Bonner Younger, Rt Hon George
Pollock, Alexander
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Tellers for the Noes:
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) Mr. Archie Hamilton and
Proctor, K. Harvey Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to