HC Deb 09 April 1984 vol 58 cc69-77

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 8, line 30, after Act;' insert— '( ) the general structure of routes of such services and the general level of provision to be made with respect to their frequency of operation;'.

No. 9, in page 8, line 32, leave out 'so provided' and insert 'provided as mentioned in paragraph (a) above'. — [Mrs. Chalker.]

Mr. Simon Hughes

I beg to move amendment No.10, in page 8, line 33, leave out clauses 9, 10 and 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

With this, we may take the following amendments:

No. 55, in clause 9, page 8, line 44, after '(1)(a)', insert 'and (b)'.

No. 56, in clause 10, page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Hughes

I shall not take the same conciliatory attitude in moving this amendment, which would delete a substantial and important part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 11 come under the heading "Powers of disposal" and the key words are at the start of clause 10: The Secretary of State may give directions to London Regional Transport requiring them to exercise their powers under section 9 of this Act —the power to dispose of the whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries and the right hon. Gentleman may also give directions to LRT requiring it to exercise its powers under clause 3, which sets out the agreements that relate to other companies, routes and so on. The only constraint on the Secretary of State is that he shall consult LRT and, in certain cases, the local authorities for which any proposal to dispose will mean substantial changes in their public transport system.

7.15 pm

The enormous power that clauses 9 to 11 gives the Secretary of State is set out in clause 10(4), which shows that LRT cannot bark back, because the subsection says, as bold as brass: It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to give effect to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State under this section notwithstanding any of their other duties under this Act. Although LRT has been set up to look after London and its transport needs, the duties in clause 2, which we have debated at length, efficiency, economy, safety, the needs of pensioners and the disabled and the varying needs of the outlying districts and the inner city can all be disregarded. All that it needs is a decision from the Secretary of State, a formal process of consultation—the Secretary of State does not have to take account of anything that is said to him — and a direction. Then he can instruct LRT, "Dispose of this part of your operations. Get rid of it. From now on, it will be run by an independent company. The public transport sector wilt not run that operation."

Over the years, public transport in London has expanded as technology has advanced. We have moved from trams and overgrounds to the building of the underground and its extension to join other traffic routes, such as Heathrow airport. We have done that with less public subsidy than is given to the transport system of any comparable city in western Europe, let alone any where else.

One reason why London Transport has so often been criticised is that insufficient money has been put in and insufficient capital has been provided for investment to keep transport going in our city and to make life for our people reasonable and satisfactory.

A Select Committee looked at the needs of London Transport because of the disastrous state of transport in the capital, which has been improved by a sensible fares structure and other actions by those responsible for it in the past few years. However, transport in the capital will be improved fundamentally only if the Government realise that they have a responsibility not only to Londoners, but to the rest of the nation, to make sure that London's transport system works well.

Clauses 9 to 11 give a power of disposal to the Secretary of State in a Government whom we know believe in privatisation and say so at every turn — they have already handed over to private enterprise British Telecom and North sea oilfields — and they are a signal that disposal may occur sooner rather than later. Of course, the Secretary of State will say that it may not and that there are no plans at the moment to do that. However, the greatest assurance that the House can give to the passengers of today and tomorrow is that there will be a public transport system, providing bus, underground and rail transport in a co-ordinated and increasingly integrated way, and that it will not be left to cut-throat competition that will oversubscribe the best routes and leave the less satisfactory routes with no one to run them.

I have lived for some while in the inner south-east part of London, which the Secretary of State and the Minister of State admitted in Committee is a poor relation in transport terms. It does not have a good service from London Transport, and there is an enormous danger that things will get worse for such areas. For many Londoners, public transport is their only transport. They need guarantees that public transport will be cheap, efficient and economical and that it will answer their needs. That can be guaranteed only if it is run in an integrated way by people who are in some way accountable to them.

Under this legislation, the thread of accountability will be thin enough. The private operators will not be accountable. There will be no guarantees, and the people will be badly served. The clauses should be deleted. This is a matter of principle to which the House should respond positively in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Snape

The clauses that would be struck out by amendment No. 10 are a disgrace. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State virtually appoints himself dictator in relation to the future of the assets of LRT. It is the most undemocratic clause that I have seen in the 10 years that I have spent in this House. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has rightly said, all that is necessary to dispose of any part of the capital's transport system is for the Secretary of State to instruct LRT to dispose of certain assets.

Clause 9 is profoundly undemocratic in that a non-elected quango could itself dispose of assets paid for by the London ratepayers and indeed by the nation's taxpayers, but the undemocratic nature of clause 9 is entirely and widely surpassed by the power of dictatorship in clause 10.

As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the Government have made no secret of their belief in the principle of privatisation. None of us on the Opposition Benches shares their views, and I suspect that some Conservative Members do not share them either. The Government make no secret of their views, and they are something that we have to live with during election campaigns, for example.

The Secretary of State needs clause 10 to assist him in his plundering of the nation's assets. That is appalling. It would be bad enough if the powers of disposal under the clause were restricted by an affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House. The Government would be able to assemble the collection of juvenile stockbrokers whom the nation so mistakenly elected in June 1983, who could trot through the Division Lobby, perhaps believing that they would be able to get their sticky fingers on the assets when they are disposed of on the private market. However, we shall not even have that safeguard. All that will be needed is an instruction from the Secretary of State.

There is something poignant about the fact that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has moved an amendment to delete clause 9, which is the only clause to refer to employee share schemes. Such schemes are dear to the heart of the Liberal party. I nevertheless congratulate the hon. Gentleman on moving the amendment. He made a good speech. I am sorry that he did not make that speech when we discussed this matter in Committee. We discussed the matter at one o'clock in the morning, and the Liberal party does not operate at maximum efficiency after midnight. The hon. Member voted on the matter, but he did not make a speech. However, the speech he has just made was worth listening to.

I doubt whether the Secretary of State will give us a satisfactory reply. It would be strange if he were to create such a precedent at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill. If we receive from the Secretary of State one of the arm-flailing laconic replies to which we have regrettably become accustomed, I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. Spearing

The words "Powers of disposal" appear in italics before clauses 9 to 11. They are followed by two pages of close and, indeed, almost impenetrable prose devoted to giving powers to the Secretary of State and to LRT to dispose of assets. The three clauses are an asset-stripper's charter, and it is a disgrace that such a charter should be incorporated in the legislation. If I am wrong, or if I am exaggerating the position, I invite the Secretary of State to tell me why those clauses are included.

If the Secretary of State thinks that he has gone a bit far, I draw his attention to my amendments Nos. 55 and 56. Even if he resists the amendment moved by the hon.

Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that he will consider favourably amendments Nos. 55 and 56, either here or in another place.

Amendment No. 55 gives LRT a duty, when considering the disposal of the whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries", to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will say "Aye, aye, aye" to any suggestion from LRT. After all, he is responsible for the Bill. However, the importance of the amendment lies in the responsibility of the Secretary of State to the House and, through the House, to the public. If at any time in the future I or any of my hon. Friends should wish to table a question asking the Secretary of State what assets LRT had disposed of in the previous year, the Secretary of State—or, indeed, an office not far from where you sit, Mr. Deputy Speaker—could say that under the Act that is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and that therefore the question may not be asked. We should therefore be unable to find out. The matter would be another official secret, and it is not inconceivable that some young lady at 55 Broadway might use a copying machine to her professional discredit.

If we add the words "subsection (1)(b)" in subsection (2), it will be necessary for LRT to obtain the permission or consent of the Secretary of State for the disposal of: The whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries. That would be a safeguard that does not exist at the moment. I see no reason why we should not have that safeguard.

7.30 pm

Amendment No. 56 proposes to leave out the most objectionable part of clause 10. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has already read out part of clause 10 (4) but I should like to read it out in full so that its full enormity can sink in. It says: It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to give effect to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State under this section notwithstanding any of their other duties under this Act. We all know that LRT's general powers are inadequately laid out and that even the weakest ones can be overridden by the Secretary of State at the drop of a hat with regard to the disposal of assets. The management can ask the Secretary of State to allow it to keep a garage, depot or piece of land because it wants to build offices due to expansion or because it wants to dispose of offices in one place and build them in another and the Secretary of State will be able to say, "No. Notwithstanding your wishes to retain that you must, for statutory reasons, get rid of it." The House is being invited to give him that power.

Whatever might have been said in Committee, it is the Secretary of State's duty to say why such power is required. We might be able to understand the request for the power if he were Secretary of State for Defence but, even in that case, there is a good deal of lively and proper controversy. Is this elective dictatorship? He has an obligation to defend clause 10(4). I support what has been said about the enormity of clauses 9, 10 and 11, and challenge the Secretary of State to say why clause 10 (4) should remain part of the Bill.

Mr. Ridley

I am amused that the amendment No. 10 has been tabled by the Liberals. We have had none of this from the Labour party, and it never occurred to me that the Liberal party was the last defender of the public sector. The Liberals have stolen a march on the Labour party, which accepts, by and large, that it is reasonable for the Government to privatise parts of London Transport as and when we see fit. The Labour party did not raise clause 11 in Committee. It is one of the major clauses of the Bill, but we had not a word on it. We had a little perfunctory debate on clauses 9 and 10, in which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) demonstrated his rhetorical and amusing skills, but they went through quickly. Suddenly, at this last moment, the Liberal party comes along defending nationalisation with strong words such as "enormous powers".

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

The right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee that this was a nationalisation Bill which provided powers that exceeded Herbert Morrison's, so what is he saying now?

Mr. Ridley

That I am trying to make it a little better. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East called clause 10 most undemocratic, and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described it as an asset stripper's charter.

The simple objective is that the Government should be able to take legal powers to privatise parts of a nationalised industry. How else did we ever privatise anything except by presenting a Bill to the House to give us powers to sell to the public various bits or the whole of nationalised industries. We took powers in the Transport Act 1981 to privatise parts of British Rail and we took powers in the Transport Act 1982 to privatise bits of the National Bus Company. Why, therefore, should we not take powers in what will be the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to privatise London's regional transport?

Mr. Simon Hughes

The answer to the Secretary of State's question is that we should judge issues on their merits. There is no merit in making London Transport a fairground for the private operator when we need a coordinated development of the present system, which is getting better and needs to be improved rather than dismantled.

Mr. Ridley

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that these were enormous and unjustified powers. Granted that we differ in that the Government wish to take those powers, I do not see what is enormous or unjustified in putting them into a Bill and asking the House to approve them, as that is the only way which we can take such powers. There is nothing exceptional or unusual about that. We are taking powers because we will want them if we want to privatise parts of London Transport.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I do not want to do him an injustice. Privatisation for maintaining operations is one thing, but does he agree that clauses 9, 10 and 11 could also apply to the disposal of the operation of public transport, which is utterly different, and that that is the greatest danger?

Mr. Ridley

We should consider the possibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee —I have also said it—that we do not intend to use the powers to create a major erosion of London Transport as we know it. If we were blessed with the extreme good fortune of parts of London Transport being profitable, it is conceivable that we might be able to return large parts of it to the private sector. That would be nothing but good.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must not make the elementary mistake of equating public transport with public ownership. There is no reason why public transport should not be privately owned. Indeed, it would probably be much better if it were. His insistence that because it is called public transport it must be in public ownership is completely outwith his normal perspicacity. I agree with him about providing a service for Londoners and the need to maintain the network although some parts of it are uneconomic. There is no chance of returning it to the private sector, hut there will be parts or bits of London Transport which might be better in the private sector.

Clause 3 enables LRT to get private contractors to do a job more cheaply. There might be a paucity of routes in south-east London and it might be better for London Transport to let the private sector provide transport in that part of London in the cheapest and best way. We are much more likely to get a decent service if the private sector is allowed to get on with the job than if we rely on nationalised industry, which we all know can let us down. I make no apology for asking for the powers. I apologise only to my hon. Friends that it might not be easy to find many candidates to make use of them.

The hon. Member for Newham, South asked two questions in regard to two amendments. They go in opposite directions as, having castigated me as the arch privatiser and villain of all times, he was desperately keen that London Transport should require my consent before selling anything. On his definition, he would hardly have to bother, as I will be bound to give such consent. Given his strange view of me, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that LRT should not have to ask me about selling anything. It will be helpful for him to know that there are precedents in all Acts concerning nationalised industries to the effect that the consent of the Secretary of State does not have to be obtained to sell part of one of their subsidiary's undertakings. That is modelled on British Rail's power in section 1(1)(b) of the Transport Act 1981.

The hon. Member for Newham, South asked about the power in section 10(4), which provides that a direction from the Secretary of State would overrule LRT's duty. We must have that power. If we intend to require LRT to dispose of an asset, we cannot have LRT able to plead that that would interfere with performing its duty under clause 2 and, therefore, give rise to legal and other disputes about whether it was possible to do so. It is right for Parliament to take the power to require industries, which are owned by taxpayers and managed by the Government, to do what the Government want them to do. There can be no question of having that obfuscated by any conflict about the true position. I am proud to advocate that. The Government wish to be able to tell LRT to dispose of an asset if we think that that would be right. I do not want anything to stand in the way.

Mr. Snape

When we asked the Secretary of State whether he could instruct LRT to operate services in the way that Londoners require and to instruct LRT about the level of the fares, why did he say that those matters were entirely the responsibility of management? What is wrong with management when it comes to flogging off public assets?

Mr. Ridley

The difference is that management manages the assets, which taxpayers have invested in LRT, while the owners of the assets are represented by the Government, who can decide what to do with the assets under their control. The Bill takes powers for the use of the Government's assets.

This is a slightly amusing but mischievous debate to have so late in the day. I am sure that the House will want warmly to endorse the Government's proposals.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 238.

Division No. 236] [7.41 pm
Alton, David Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ashdown, Paddy John, Brynmor
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Kennedy, Charles
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Barron, Kevin Leighton, Ronald
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Beith, A. J. Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Bell, Stuart Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Bermingham, Gerald McGuire, Michael
Blair, Anthony McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty McKelvey, William
Boyes, Roland Maclennan, Robert
Bray, Dr Jeremy McNamara, Kevin
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) McTaggart, Robert
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) McWilliam, John
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Martin, Michael
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Maxton, John
Buchan, Norman Maynard, Miss Joan
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Michie, William
Campbell-Savours, Dale Mikardo, Ian
Canavan, Dennis Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Clarke, Thomas Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Clay, Robert Nellist, David
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Cohen, Harry Parry, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Patchett, Terry
Corbett, Robin Pavitt, Laurie
Craigen, J. M. Pendry, Tom
Crowther, Stan Pike, Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence Prescott, John
Dalyell, Tam Randall, Stuart
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Richardson, Ms Jo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Robertson, George
Deakins, Eric Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Dewar, Donald Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Dixon, Donald Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Dobson, Frank Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Dormand, Jack Sedgemore, Brian
Dubs, Alfred Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Duffy, A. E. P. Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Ellis, Raymond Skinner, Dennis
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Ewing, Harry Snape, Peter
Fatchett, Derek Spearing, Nigel
Fisher, Mark Steel, Rt Hon David
Flannery, Martin Stott, Roger
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Thomas, Dr R, (Carmarthen)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Godman, Dr Norman Tinn, James
Golding, John Torney, Tom
Gould, Bryan Wainwright, R.
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Hamilton, W. W, (Central Fife) Wareing, Robert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Weetch, Ken
Haynes, Frank Welsh, Michael
Heffer, Eric S. Wigley, Dafydd
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Williams, Rt Hon A.
Hoyle, Douglas Winnick, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Woodall, Alec
Wrigglesworth, Ian Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.
Tellers for the Ayes:
Aitken, Jonathan Glyn, Dr Alan
Alexander, Richard Goodhart, Sir Philip
Amess, David Goodlad, Alastair
Ancram, Michael Gower, Sir Raymond
Arnold, Tom Gregory, Conal
Ashby, David Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Grist, Ian
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Grylls, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Gummer, John Selwyn
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Hampson, Dr Keith
Baldry, Anthony Hanley, Jeremy
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Hannam, John
Batiste, Spencer Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Hayes, J.
Bellingham, Henry Hayward, Robert
Bendall, Vivian Henderson, Barry
Benyon, William Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Berry, Sir Anthony Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Best, Keith Holt, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Howard, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hunt, David (Wirral)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Braine, Sir Bernard Key, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin King, Rt Hon Tom
Bright, Graham Lang, Ian
Brinton, Tim Latham, Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Lawler, Geoffrey
Brooke, Hon Peter Lester, Jim
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Browne, John Lightbown, David
Bruinvels, Peter Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Budgen, Nick Lord, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond Luce, Richard
Butcher, John Lyell, Nicholas
Butterfill, John McCrindle, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Macfarlane, Neil
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) MacGregor, John
Carttiss, Michael MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Maclean, David John
Chapman, Sydney McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) McQuarrie, Albert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Madel, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Major, John
Cockeram, Eric Malins, Humfrey
Colvin, Michael Malone, Gerald
Conway, Derek Maples, John
Coombs, Simon Marlow, Antony
Cope, John Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Couchman, James Mather, Carol
Crouch, David Maude, Hon Francis
Dicks, Terry Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Dorrell, Stephen Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Mellor, David
Dover, Den Merchant, Piers
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Meyer, Sir Anthony
Dunn, Robert Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Durant, Tony Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Dykes, Hugh Miscampbell, Norman
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Moate, Roger
Emery, Sir Peter Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Evennett, David Monro, Sir Hector
Eyre, Sir Reginald Montgomery, Fergus
Fallon, Michael Moore, John
Farr, John Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Fookes, Miss Janet Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Forman, Nigel Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Moynihan, Hon C.
Franks, Cecil Neubert, Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Newton, Tony
Fry, Peter Nicholls, Patrick
Garel-Jones, Tristan Nicholson, J.
Norris, Steven Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Onslow, Cranley Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Oppenheim, Philip Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Ottaway, Richard Stewart, Ian (N Hertf"dshire)
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Stokes, John
Parris, Matthew Stradling Thomas, J.
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Sumberg, David
Pawsey, James Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, William (Corby) Temple-Morris, Peter
Powley, John Terlezki, Stefan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Price, Sir David Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Proctor, K. Harvey Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Raffan, Keith Thornton, Malcolm
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Thurnham, Peter
Rathbone, Tim Townend, John (Bridlington)
Renton, Tim Tracey, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert Twinn, Dr Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rifkind, Malcolm Waddington, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Waldegrave, Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion Walden, George
Rossi, Sir Hugh Waller, Gary
Rost, Peter Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Rowe, Andrew Watson, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Watts, John
Ryder, Richard Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Sayeed, Jonathan Wells, John (Maidstone)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Wheeler, John
Shelton, William (Streatham) Whitfield, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Whitney, Raymond
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Wiggin, Jerry
Shersby, Michael Winterton, Mrs Ann
Silvester, Fred Winterton, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wolfson, Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas Wood, Timothy
Spencer, Derek Woodcock, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Yeo, Tim
Squire, Robin Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Stanley, John Tellers for the Noes:
Stern, Michael Mr. Archie Hamilton and
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Back to
Forward to