British Railways (Stansted) Bill

HC Deb 03 June 1986 vol 98 cc814-34

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[24 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

9.2 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

I wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise a principle that perhaps lies outside the debate. The House has a resumed debate before it, there have been significant developments and there is a clear desire on the part of Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the debate. Some of us have already contributed to it and on occasion it is the practice of the House to grant Members a second opportunity to speak, should the House feel so moved. Can you advise me and the rest of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in what circumstances a second opportunity to speak is possible, given the great pace of developments and the importance of having a thorough debate this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is entirely a matter for the House. If the hon. Gentleman seeks the leave of the House to speak again on the same matter and the House grants him leave, he will be given the opportunity to do so. If the House withholds its permission, the matter is out of my hands.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker at the start of private business and he advised me to raise it again at the start of the debate on the Bill as the point was specific to it.

In the Vote Office I was handed with the Bill a statement from British Rail on the British Railways (Stansted) Bill—a statement by the promoters—on why they believe the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I am raising a serious matter because I believe that the final paragraph of the statement misleads the House. It is an abuse of the House for the Bill to be proceeded with in this way. The statement refers to the debate on 24 February and states: Since then, the Board have made strenuous efforts to satisfy those hon. Members who opposed the Bill. That is untrue and incorrect. That statement by British Rail will mislead hon. Members. It would be appropriate for the promoters to withdraw the Bill tonight to allow that statement to be corrected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for me. It is for the House to take into account when it makes its decision on the Question that will be put before the House. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the point raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is germane, and as the supposed attempts to satisfy the objectors to the Bill have not been made, the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about being able to speak again in the debate clearly is important. You kindly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was a matter for the House. I take it that we should begin by making an appeal to you. Is that the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes, that is the case.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your statement. May I reiterate the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd)? My hon. Friend spoke about the ability of hon. Members to catch your eye for a second time. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is likely to be new information introduced into the debate. I remind you that a considerable number of hon. Members were unable to catch your eye on the last occasion that the matter was debated. I hope that you will give fairly careful consideration to the possibility of a closure when it is obvious that new matters will be introduced. There is already a considerable list of hon. Members from the last debate on this matter who want to express their point of view, some who wish to raise constituency points and others who feel that because of the new information put forward they ought to be able again to express their points of view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that of course the Chair, when considering who should be called to participate in the debate, will have regard to those who have not had the opportunity to address the House. It might be helpful if we could get on with the debate, otherwise very few hon. Members will have the chance to participate.

9.7 pm.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

I have been waiting patiently to continue my speech which was interrupted by the closure motion. The House will remember that only about 60 hon. Members voted for closure and 30 hon. Members were against. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. I am sure that many Conservative Members also wish to take part, and I understand that the Minister wants to speak.

This is a very important debate and we should not rush into premature conclusions. Without wishing to question or contradict your decision in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rose at six or even seven minutes past 9 o'clock and the Clerk did not read the business until two minutes past 9 so at the most we will have 58 minutes for the debate if one takes the time from when the Clerk read the business or perhaps only 54 minutes to debate an important Bill.

This Bill will affect constituents in the north-west of England and my constituents in Wrexham in Wales as Wrexham is very close to Manchester. I understand why British Rail wishes to build the link to Stansted. Let me put my cards on the table. I am not against British Rail building a railway link to Stansted. That is very laudable. Unfortunately, I have to oppose the Bill because British Rail is building the link at the expense of building a link to Manchester, or building or repairing other railways or improving other lines to make them quicker and more efficient. British Rail could do that if the money was available, but if it spends money on the Stansted link there will be less money to improve services elsewhere.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

indicated dissent.

Dr. Marek

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in due course.

My experience of British Rail's policies over the past five or six years is that there is always a lack of money, so much so that one line has been taken up between Wrexham and Chester, leaving a single track, because British Rail could do other things with the metal from that line. Incidentally, there is now a much worse service between Wrexham and Chester. If the Bill were not passed and the money were made available for something else, British Rail could undo some of the damage that it has done and restore the double track between Wrexham and Chester.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

The Minister seems to dissent from the view that British Rail has a measure of choice in its capital projects. The Minister and my hon. Friend know far more about the railway system than I do, but am I right in thinking that British Rail is governed by the external financing limit? If so, if this money were not spent on Stansted and the external financing limit remained the same, those moneys would be made available for the project that my hon. Friend is talking about.

Dr. Marek

My hon. Friend makes the case. That is the position as I understand it. If money was not spent on building the line to Stansted, that money would be available for spending elsewhere. I have not yet had a chance to talk about the merits of such a line or the number of passengers who will use it and the subsidies that Stansted receives.

British Rail could provide a link to Manchester airport. which is in a central position. In many ways London is not central. It is not central for me, nor for my hon. Friend. Manchester is far more central and far better placed to spend that money. Many people from the midlands who wish to go on holiday could easily go to Manchester from Birmingham. Trains could be provided from the midlands to Crewe and then to Wilmslow and if the Manchester link were built on the Styal line passengers from the midlands, north Wales, the north-west and the north of England could easily use Manchester airport instead of Stansted.

I would not be surprised if many hon. Members did not know exactly where Stansted was. I do not really know where it is. I know roughly within an area of five or 10 miles, but it is almost impossible to get to. I imagine that if most people from the midlands and the north could not use Manchester they would have to go by train to Euston. then make a difficult journey on the underground or take a taxi or bus to Liverpool street and then on to Stansted. That is not the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

My hon. Friend is talking about the potential traffic that could be generated from the midlands to Manchester airport. I am sure that he will be as aware as I am of British Rail's interest in developing the Castlefield curve and the Windsor link in Manchester. It would open up the north of England, east and west, direct by train through Manchester to a possible Manchester airport link. So we are not just talking about the amount of traffic that could be generated from the midlands. With British Rail's firm proposals on the Castlefield curve and the Windsor link, Yorkshire and the north of England are being opened up to Manchester airport.

Dr. Marek

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. The money that would be spent on Stansted could be spent on other areas which would benefit many more people and would make travel and transport much more convenient.

It is a pity that the Government have chosen their aviation policy and have decided that Stansted should become a sort of third charter airport. It will always be an ailing lame duck and will always have to receive subsidies from Gatwick or Heathrow. The Government should look at this again and ask themselves what can be done to help the majority of our people, and what can be done to help the railway system at the same time. If they did that, they would certainly not decide to spend the money on this railway line, this little spur fom Stansted airport.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

It is not only Manchester on which money should be spent; money should also be spent on the important airport at Newcastle. If the Government were to make finance available to extend the Tyne and Wear metro to Newcastle airport, it would be money well invested and would be better than investing at Stansted.

Dr. Marek

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) makes a valid and pertinent point.

I hope that the Government and the promoters of the Bill and British Rail will take note of the disquiet on this side of the House. This is only the Second Reading and there are many more stages to go. Unless there is some movement by somebody somewhere about spending money on the things that we want for the benefit of our constituents, this measure will be fought to the bitter end. The Government are in the run-up to the next general election and all sorts of things have been known to happen during such a period. Discussion on Bills like this could go on and on. I am not accusing the Minister of being intransigent—not at this stage, anyway—and I shall listen with interest to what he says.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

Is it not remarkable that there is not one hon. Member whose constituents are in favour of the Stansted link? There does not appear to be anybody who wants it. The only people concerned about it are the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and me, and we are anxious about the link to Manchester airport.

Dr. Marek

I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). They reinforce what I have been saying and show that there is a certain amount of cross-party feeling on this important issue.

Let me give one more example of what British Rail could spend the money on if it did not spend it on the Stansted link. It could spend the money on making automatic open level crossings a bit safer. There was a crash a few days ago between Wrexham and Chester in which one person was killed. I understand that there was another crash at an automatic open level crossing a few days ago in Ammanford. Thank goodnes nobody was killed in that crash, but it was still another accident. I have heard of a number of accidents on the automatic open level crossing outside Aberystwyth which carries the Aberystwyth to Devil's Bridge line across one of the A class roads. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a toy railway".] It is not quite a toy railway. The engine that ploughed into an articulted lorry the other day weighed 20 tons. It was fortunate that in that instance nobody was killed.

The regulations were recently relaxed a little by this Administration. I wonder whether they were relaxed too much or whether it was just coincidence and that there was no relationship between that relaxation and those accidents.

I do not want to stray from the debate, but it is important to say that there are things that British Rail could do. Without doubt, I could speak about those things for two or three hours and give the House examples of what should be done but is not being done. One thing British Rail should not do is build this line to Stansted. It is not needed. There are other airports such as those at Newcastle, Manchester and Teesside, indeed all over Britain, that are far more convenient for our people, yet an airport at Stansted is to be foisted on us. Nobody knows where it is. It will be an ailing duck, and will have all this extra capital expenditure out of sums badly needed by British Rail. It is a mistake, and I hope that the Bill does not get a Second Reading. I hope that, because of the lack of time, we will not be able to come to a decision about whether to give it a Second Reading. It might be found expedient to put it down for debate on another day to conclude the debate. We cannot conclude the debate now.

9.20 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

It disappoints me that, with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am forced to oppose a Bill that is promoted by British Rail. Oppose it we must, however, in the interests of what is by common consent one of the few major growth points outside the south-east of England. I refer, as the Minister of State knows, to Manchester airport.

The Minister has suggested that the Bill is of no relevance to Manchester airport, but that is not how we see it, and his suggestion is in fact wholly untenable. On 14 May the Minister met, at the Department of Transport, representatives of Manchester Airport plc, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and British Rail. The meeting was chaired by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), then the Secretary of State for Transport, who made a similar suggestion. I must, therefore, relate to the House the reply that I made to the former Secretary of State at that meeting. Last year's White Paper on airports policy in paragraph 6.33 promised that the Government would consider the rail link to Manchester airport on the same terms as the rail link to Stansted airport. Until that undertaking has been honoured, and is seen to be honoured, the House should not allow this Bill to proceed.

In spite of repeated assurances, the last of which was given at the meeting on 14 May, British Rail has still not made publicly available the details of the investment bid for the Stansted link. The revenue forecasts, and the assumptions employed on traffic generation, are unknown to me and to the House. It is argued that this is commercially confidential information. Yet how can this be so when the main parties — British Rail and the British Airports Authority—are, for the time being at least, public corporations? Such an argument is clearly unacceptable.

Details of the work undertaken on the Manchester link are available for public scrutiny. It consists of a series of technical papers explaining the alignment, the construction and the operational costs of the proposed link. It shows that the estimated capital costs of construction are £15 million. The revenue forecasts range from £13.8 million at the low end — if only 4 per cent. of the airport's passengers used the rail link—to £26.3 million at the top end—that is if 7 per cent. of passengers used the link. At the low end, which all the parties agree is the worst possible case, the rail link would be unprofitable. At the top end it would more than pay its way.

There is also the question of funding. One has to look beyond the technical papers——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will my right hon. Friend accept that British Rail's unspoken fear is that if it puts the link into Manchester airport that will take work away from other links? The north-west is pleased that British Rail has increased the number of through trains to Gatwick from the Manchester area. However, the problem is that British Rail is not taking into account the likelihood of attracting additional trade from the rest of the country to Manchester. It is taking into account only the possibility of losing trade on its rail links to London and the south.

Mr. Morris

My hon. Friend endorses the suspicion of many other people and raises an important point.

As to funding, one has to look beyond the technical papers for information and, in particular, to a covering letter addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport and signed by the chairmen of British Rail, Manchester Airport plc and the Greater Manchester PTA. The letter pointed out that the estimated construction costs of the link—£15 million—will not be fully borne by British Rail, which believes such an investment to be too risky. While British Rail has said that it will make a capital contribution towards the cost of the Manchester rail link, the figure suggested—£5million—equates with the lowest point on the forecast revenues. Yet British Rail ought, in my view, to accept that the revenues derived will he a reflection of the efforts that it expends in marketing the facility. The better and more vigorous the marketing, the higher the usage and the revenues. This was put to the chairman of British Rail in my presence and that of the Minister of State at the recent meeting at the Department of Transport. I have no evidence yet that the chairman accepts what virtually everyone else associated with the proposed rail link to Manchester airport regards as self-evidently true.

Manchester Airport plc and the Greater Manchester PTA, while seeing the link as a commercial opportunity, are prepared to play their full part in achieving this important new facility for the north-west, but this cannot be done at the cost of prejudicing their own ordinary investment programmes. The board of Manchester Airport plc is not a railway company. It must devote is efforts to the future development of the airport. The PTA is in a desperate financial position. It is now having to grapple with the daunting task of trying to keep the basic public transport network together, within a ludicrously inadequate expenditure limit. The development of any part of the system, at a time when the PTA does not know how much money it will receive to spend on public transport next year, is plainly unrealistic. So it is clear that unless British Rail, which is manifestly so keen to proceed with the Stansted link, takes a less gloomy and more realistic attitude to Manchester's case, our rail link may be indefinitely delayed. That would be a tragedy, not only for Manchester airport, but for the region as a whole.

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)

In last year's White Paper on airports policy the Government promised that they would consider the cases for developing the rail links to Stansted and Manchester airports on equal terms. This is not coming about. All that we are seeing is a lack of enthusiasm for Manchester.

Mr. Morris

My hon. Friend quotes the White Paper accurately. I entirely agree with him, as I shall explain when proceeding with my speech.

Manchester airport is the fastest growing airport in Europe, but its success has been hard won. Maintaining that success will demand even greater efforts than those already made by the people—thousands of them my constituents—who operate and manage the airport. It will be forced to compete with a subsidised Stansted. Nearly £300 million needs to be found to support the anticipated growth of Manchester airport over the next 10 years. The airport must become more accessible if that growth is to be realised. At the present time accessibility by road is one of the airport's main advantages, with a direct link to the M56 providing access to the national motorway network. The airport is not, however, well served by public transport. Only local bus services connect the airport with neighbouring towns and suburbs. Passengers travelling by rail have to travel to Manchester city centre and make use of an express bus link to get to the airport. Although the airport lies adjacent to the rail network, there is no connection and the nearest station is some 2 miles from the terminal buildings. It is vital to the future development of the airport that a rail link is provided to coincide with the development of a second terminal by the early 1990s.

Such a link would clearly stimulate growth. It would also greatly relieve the otherwise inevitable pressure that will build on the road network and for car parking facilities. We have all seen the results of lack of action at Heathrow and the necessity for urgent and very expensive action to rectify its problems. The people of Greater Manchester do not want to see the same problems at their airport. It is an asset of the first importance in creating new employment opportunities in a part of the country where unemployment is unacceptably high and youth unemployment a total scandal, if that word still has any meaning in contemporary Britain.

I make a plea to the Minister: have a quiet and urgent word with the chairman of British Rail and end forthwith the costly delay that we face in respect of the Manchester rail link. The Government have a responsibility to see the Manchester link go ahead. It would fit in with the aviation objectives about which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) pointed out, they talk long and often enough. It would also coincide with their other stated objective to disperse tourist activities throughout the country. If British Rail becomes more enthusiastic and constructive, the link will happen. The message tonight from this House is that until British Rail demonstrates such an attitude, it ought not reasonably to expect the Stansted Bill to pass.

9.30 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

If may have the leave of the House to speak again, I am grateful for the opportunity. Given the concern that has been expressed this evening about the board's investment proposal for a link to Stansted and about the case for a link to Manchester airport, it might assist the House if I describe briefly what developments there have been since the debate on the Bill on 24 February.

The board submitted its investment proposal for a Stansted rail link in November last year. The board believes that there is a robust financial case for a link. Following discussions at Rail house and with hon. Members, the board has said that it intends to make a small change in its proposal and to invest in new rolling stock for a fast airport service rather than use existing and refurbished stock for the link service. We shall need to examine the board's amended proposal according to our normal investment appraisal pattern. I hope to be in a position then to announce a decision on that investment proposal in relation to Stansted.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

The Minister has made a point about a change in the board's proposal. I understand that that may not be unrelated to the withdrawal of certain names from the blocking motion. However, it is up to individual hon. Members to sort out their views. Will the Minister confirm that British Rail promised, not once but several times, that it would make available to those concerned in Manchester the financial details of the Stansted link? Despite those assurances, we are still awaiting that information. Does he seriously expect us to accept the Bill in its present form without that information having been made available?

Mr. Mitchell

British Rail is a commercial organisation and, as such, its commercial information has a certain value. It has been given to Ministers in the preparation by British Rail of the case for the service to Stansted. We have not yet finished examining the viability of the case that British Rail has put to us. When we have done so, we shall certainly make an announcement. I share with the hon. Gentleman the view that the same criteria should apply to the Government's examination of any proposals in relation to Manchester as apply to proposals for Stansted.

Mr. Silvester

Will my hon. Friend note that a senior member of British Rail informed me that there was no difficulty in making available to us the calculations in regard to Stansted so that we could make the comparison with Manchester? We are still in the position that that information has not been given to us. In the current atmosphere of distrust it is impossible for us to make a rational decision about the Bill until that information is available. Why are we told one thing privately and another thing publicly?

Mr. Mitchell

Conversations that have taken place with members of the staff of British Rail are matters for British Rail and for the hon. Members who have had those discussions; they are not matters for me.

It may be helpful if I explain to the House some developments that have occurred since the House last discussed the matter in relation to Manchester. On 10 April British Rail, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and the airport company wrote jointly to the Secretary of State, summarising the conclusions reached so far on the financial case for the Manchester rail link.

The parties requested a meeting to discuss the financing of the rail link and that took place on 14 May. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) were present. The parties have agreed to examine further the scope for contribution towards the cost of the scheme and to seek a further meeting with the Secretary of State when they have done so. I can assure the House that there will be careful and fair assessment at that further meeting of the case which may be put by those who are coming to see the Secretary of State and myself.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

For fear that he may inadvertently be in danger of misleading the House, will the Minister confirm that the agreement to come back to the Secretary of State was made not in the sense that an agreement was struck at that meeting or subsequently but simply because a total impasse had been reached and, in order to have any hope of progress, it was necessary to agree to a future meeting? Will the Minister confirm that that is an accurate picture?

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman may put his own interpretation upon the reasons which led the parties at the meeting to agree to withdraw to consider further and to meet again. All I am saying is that that is the stage to which matters have now proceeded.

I anticipate that there will be a further meeting at which we shall of course want as full, frank and open a discussion as possible about the information which will then be available. The information may arise from further work by British Rail or from the views as to contributions by the various parties. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe believes that there is a prospect of much higher usage of the Manchester link leading to a much better financial return than British Rail expects. If that is right, it may be that there will be those who will wish to participate in such enhanced profits and be prepared to put up the money to have the opportunity of sharing in such profits. I do not know. That is a matter for the parties to discuss.

It is quite phoney to link the schemes for Manchester and Stansted because a proposition has been made by British Rail for investment in Stansted. We are considering that. We shall appraise it and make a decision on its merits. We shall then consider the issue of Manchester and, again, we shall consider that and judge it on its merits. That must be the right and proper way in which to proceed.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I have heard the Minister on many occasions, along with colleagues on the Treasury Bench, saying that there is a competition for resources. Is he now saying that there is no competition for resources and that there are no choices to be faced in terms of public expenditure? I do not understand his point.

Mr. Mitchell

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that competition for resources does not arise in this case. The hon. Member for Wrexhank(Dr. Marek) was unusually ill-informed in suggesting that there was some competition between the resources for Stansted and the resources for double-lining the railway line, which is one of his hobby horses. The fact is that the expenditure on Stansted will be approved only if it shows a full commercial return. If the Manchester scheme shows a commercial return it, too, will be approved. I am asked whether the acceptance of a Stansted scheme, if the Government approve the submission from British Rail, removes the availability of resources for other investment. The answer is no, because it is fully commercially viable. It is not part of a subsidised network, but a fully commercial investment which will not eat into the availability of resources elsewhere.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties for the people in the north-west is that they feel that if a decision is made separately and on its own merits for Stansted before a decision is made for Manchester it could draw traffic from Manchester and reduce the viability of the subsequent decision for Manchester?

Mr. Mitchell

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is not so. The time scale is such that the people from the north-west who come to see the Secretary of State will return within a relatively short time to see how much further they have got with their discussions. That will be long before construction work can start on Stansted. Therefore, there is no question of Stansted being able to draw traffic from Manchester before there has been a proper assessment of the Manchester opportunity.

Mr. Favell

How will my hon. Friend deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that British Rail will move heaven and earth to prevent the rail link at Manchester airport because it fears the competition from Manchester airport to London on the commuter services against its inter-city services, which are already under heavy strain because of competition from Manchester airport? British Rail has a vested interest in preventing that link. Stansted is a completely different matter because it will deal with charter flight traffic, not commuter traffic. Consequently, British Rail will move heaven and earth to prevent the Manchester airport link. How will my hon. Friend deal with that?

Mr. Mitchell

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Stansted is different. That is why it is right that we should examine the two different propositions separately. My hon. Friend suggested that British Rail would not wish to see a link to Manchester airport, but that is not my impression from talking to British Rail management. If there is a viable proposition, both I and, I understand, British Rail are as keen as possible to secure it.

Mr. Favell

May I remind my hon. Friend that last year 500,000 passengers flew from Stansted and 5 million from Manchester? Why on earth should it be commercially viable to serve 500,000 passengers but not 5 million?

Mr. Mitchell

My hon. Friend should know that part of the assessment of Stansted is the fact that it is directly linked to London. A huge proportion of passengers who will use Stansted will come from London, just as a huge proportion go to Heathrow and Gatwick. The catchment area for Manchester is far more diffuse. There is not an overwhelming proportion of passengers who will go direct from Manchester city to the airport. They will come from many different directions. That is part of the difference in the proportion of passengers who will be carried, and is a factor in the assessment. It is not for me to make the assessment, but for British Rail to exercise its commercial judgment. I shall welcome its proposition, providing it is viable.

British Rail has said that it is prepared to invest £5 million because it sees that as a commercial contribution. If others are prepared to invest the balance and put their money where their mouths are, I can see some prospect for progress.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Will the Minister at least agree that it is grossly pessimistic of British Rail to assume that as few as four in 100 of Manchester airport's passengers will use the rail link? It is all eagerness about Stansted and all hesitation about the proposed rail link to Manchester. That is what upsets hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Mitchell

I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that one needs to look searchingly at the figures. It is right and proper that the parties who will reconsider the question, following the meeting which was held with the previous Secretary of State for Transport, look closely at the figures and at the justification for them. When the group returns to meet me and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport, I can assure the tight hon. Gentleman that we shall give as thorough an examination as possible of all the figures. Furthermore, I give him the positive assurance that, in any assessment of an investment proposition from British Rail, we shall apply identical criteria of financial return required for Manchester as for Stansted.

Mr. Silvester

I dashed out to get a copy of the letter which the Minister sent to me on 2 June about the meeting on 14 May. I should be grateful if he could clarify exactly what the position is. It seems to me that the letter says something different from what the Minister implied in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister said in his letter: British Rail have said that million is the most they could justify in investing in the rail link. We understand that. The question is whether British Rail is required to re-investigate and move from that position, or is it just other people who are asked to do so? The letter continued: The Secretary of State invited the deputation, in the light of their individual assessments of the prospects of the scheme, to consider the financial contribution they were prepared to make. Does that mean that British Rail is being asked to reinvestigate its contribution? Why does the Minister keep saying that British Rail, in its commercial judgment, is prepared to put up £5 million and no more, and we must like it or lump it, and that the other two parties must go away and reconsider their position? That is the crux of the debate. I believe that British Rail has every commercial justification for putting up a minimum of £7.5 million. I cannot see how any rational judgment of the revenue of the line could counter that statement. There has been no movement from Sir Bob Reid. If the matter is to he taken seriously, we must have his assurance, and that of the Secretary of State, whom I am pleased to see is in the Chamber, that they are taking the matter to the chairman and will ask him to look at the figures realistically and make a proper assessment of what the line can produce.

Mr. Mitchell

I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. All the parties are re-examining their contributions. I shall draw tny hon. Friend's point to the attention of the chairman of British Rail, so that when the representatives of the north-west meet the Secretary of State there are on the table figures as full as is consistent with commercial confidence, which demonstrate the basis upon which British Rail has arrived at them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Government are considering whether the Stansted scheme is viable. They are asking British Rail to consider further the Manchester scheme. Would it not be a good idea to suggest to the promoters that they should defer further consideration of the Bill until decisions are reached? If we waited until decisions were reached, and if there was a clear undertaking to the House that Stansted and Manchester were to go ahead, a great deal of the House's time could be saved. It seems rather pointless to proceed with the Bill when there are so many ifs and buts.

Mr. Mitchell

I do not want this to become an endless dialogue. I have been allowed to trespass by having an opportunity to speak a second time. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to try to use the British Railways (Stansted) Bill as a lever to secure benefits for Manchester and Manchester airport, the fact of the matter is that they are separate propositions. I have gone a long way to try to ensure that there is absolute fairness in the assessment of each proposition. But it would be quite wrong to pretend that one set of calculations can be in any way related to another.

Dr. Marek

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell

I have given way quite a few times, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.

The House should make its decision about Stansted. We shall have the further meeting to which I have referred in order to look again in more detail at Manchester's case.

9.50 pm

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech. However, his Government made two decisions that inexorably led British Rail to consider its position. The previous Secretary of State made both of those decisions. Incidentally, I am happy to welcome the new Secretary of State to the House. Those two decisions were to go ahead with the expansion of Stansted airport, and with a fixed link across the Channel. Both decisions meant that British Rail had to reappraise its investment plans.

Those decisions were made not by British Rail but by the Government. British Rail is responding to the decisions. It has promoted a private Bill to make a link between London and Stansted because the Government gave the go-ahead for Stansted. It is also precepting an enormous amount of its resources in order to provide the infrastructure required to comply with the decision to go ahead with the Channel tunnel. I believe that it will have to spend about £55 million on the Snowhill tunnel, and that is a direct consequence of the Government's decision to have a fixed link.

Those of us who represent constituencies in the north and areas in and around Manchester, which already has an international airport, believe that the Government's decisions on those two issues involving expenditure by British Rail will precept other expenditure elsewhere. I was interested in what the Minister said about reappraising the position. I hope that the position will be reappraised. Unless that happens, the cross-party support on this issue will give the debate on the Stansted link a very bumpy ride.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that he had had a meeting with the previous Secretary of State on 14 May. That date is important. The chief executive of the metropolitan borough of Wigan received a letter dated the following day, 15 May, from one of the Minister's officials. It is signed by Mr.—I assume that it is Mr.—P. G. Hewett from the Department of Transport. It says: We understand that British Rail's view is that there is no evidence to support the PTA's and Airport Board's view that there is a commercial case for this project. It is not for the Government to interfere with British Rail's commercial judgment and it is certainly not for the Government to press British Rail to finance a project out of its own resources if they believe it to be inherently risky. British Rail are, we understand, prepared to put up a certain sum of money, amounting to about one third of the cost of the whole project, which they believe is the largest sum that is commercially justifiable for this investment, but it remains open to local authorities in the Manchester area to top up that sum to meet the whole cost of the project. That letter was written the day after my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members had had a meeting with the former Secretary of State. I do not know whether the civil servant who wrote that letter was involved in that meeting, or whether he was aware of the shifting of the sands.

The Department's view is that it is up to British Rail. British Rail is saying to the Department that it is not commercially viable to have a link between Manchester and its airport. That is nonsense. As my hon. Friends representing constituencies in Manchester and the north-east have said, British Rail has not provided us with the statistical and financial information on which it bases that judgment. It has refused——

Mr. Tony Lloyd

I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 136 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question,That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tony Lloyd (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention the fact that the debate started a little after 9 o'clock, the Minister has taken some 20 minutes, and it was obvious that a closure motion would be moved while many Members were still anxious to speak. I felt it necessary, to protect their interests, that the Question on the motion, That strangers do withdraw be put to the House, although I regret doing it in principle. It is a great shame that we have to use such tactics at this stage. I should be grateful if you would say whether, as a result of the motion, it will be possible for a closure motion to be accepted after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker

It is in order for me to put the closure motion after 10 o'clock if this motion goes through, and if the closure motion is moved.

The House having divided: Ayes 17, Noes 226.

Division No. 199]	[9.55 pm
AYES
Atkinson, N, (Tottenham)	Martin, Michael
Caborn, Richard	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Patchett, Terry
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Redmond, Martin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Clarke, Thomas	Welsh, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Deakins, Eric	Tellers for the Ayes:
Forrester, John	Mr. Fred Silvester and Mr. Tony Lloyd.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
McKelvey, William

NOES
Adley, Robert	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Aitken, Jonathan	Haselhurst, Alan
Amess, David	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Aspinwall, Jack	Hayes, J.
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Hayward, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Heddle, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Henderson, Barry
Baldry, Tony	Hickmet, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hind, Kenneth
Bellingham, Henry	Home Robertson, John
Benyon, William	Howard, Michael
Best, Keith	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Howells, Geraint
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Hoyle, Douglas
Blackburn, John	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Blair, Anthony	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hunter, Andrew
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Boyes, Roland	Jackson, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Brinton, Tim	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Bruinvels, Peter	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Key, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Burt, Alistair	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Butcher, John	Knowles, Michael
Butterfill, John	Lamont, Norman
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Lang, Ian
Carlisle, John (Luton N)	Latham, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Lawler, Geoffrey
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Lawrence, Ivan
Cartwright, John	Leadbitter, Ted
Cash, William	Leighton, Ronald
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Lester, Jim
Chope, Christopher	Lightbown, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Livsey, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Clay, Robert	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Lord, Michael
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lyell, Nicholas
Cohen, Harry	McCrindle, Robert
Conway, Derek	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cope, John	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Couchman, James	Maclean, David John
Critchley, Julian	McLoughlin, Patrick
Crouch, David	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	McQuarrie, Albert
Dorrell, Stephen	Malins, Humfrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Malone, Gerald
Dover, Den	Maples, John
Durant, Tony	Marek, Dr John
Eggar, Tim	Mather, Carol
Emery, Sir Peter	Maude, Hon Francis
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Forth, Eric	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Franks, Cecil	Maynard, Miss Joan
Freeman, Roger	Merchant, Piers
Fry, Peter	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Gale, Roger	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Galley, Roy	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moate, Roger
Glyn, Dr Alan	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Moore, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Gregory, Conal	Moynihan, Hon C.
Grist, Ian	Neale, Gerrard
Ground, Patrick	Nicholls, Patrick
Gummer, Rt Hon John S	Norris, Steven
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hannam, John	Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Pawsey, James	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Portillo, Michael	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Powley, John	Temple-Morris, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Price, Sir David	Thornton, Malcolm
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Thumham, Peter
Rathbone, Tim	Trippier, David
Raynsford, Nick	Trotter, Neville
Rhodes James, Robert	Twinn, Dr Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Waddington, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Walden, George
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Wall, Sir Patrick
Ryder, Richard	Waller, Gary
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Sayeed, Jonathan	Warren, Kenneth
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Watts, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Shersby, Michael	Whitfield, John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth	Whitney, Raymond
Sims, Roger	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Winterton, Nicholas
Skinner, Dennis	Wolfson, Mark
Speed, Keith	Wood, Timothy
Spencer, Derek	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Yeo, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stanley, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony	Tellers for the Noes:
Stern, Michael	Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.

10.9 pm

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (seated and covered)

Mr. Speaker, was it fair to move the closure at this stage when it is clear that on the Opposition side of the House there are a substantial number of hon. Members who wish to continue to debate the issue and when the House agreed in the previous debate not to grant a closure?

It is unfair to force a closure on the House at this stage, as many hon. Members wish to debate the matter. The closure will simply mean that hon. Members will have to return to the issue again on further proceedings on the Bill, whereas had no decision been reached tonight, and had the promoters and other parties concerned been able to reach agreement, we could have made speedy progress.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must take into account the fact that the Bill has previously had three hours of discussion and a further hour this evening. It is well within precedent for me to accept a closure motion at this time.

Mr. Straw (seated and covered)

Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask you what precedent there is for accepting after 10 o'clock a closure on private business which has been scheduled to take place between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to pages 453 and 454 of "Erskine May", which deal with closures at the projected moment of interruption. The hon. Gentleman will find the precedents set out there.

The House having divided: Ayes 217, Noes 106.

Division No. 200]	[10.10 pm
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan	Hannam, John
Amess, David	Haselhurst, Alan
Ashby, David	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Aspinwall, Jack	Hayes, J.
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Heddle, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Henderson, Barry
Baldry, Tony	Hickmet, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Hicks, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Bellingham, Henry	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Benyon, William	Howard, Michael
Best, Keith	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Howells, Geraint
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Brinton, Tim	Hunter, Andrew
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Brooke, Hon Peter	Irving, Charles
Bruinvels, Peter	Jackson, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Buck, Sir Antony	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Butcher, John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Butterfill, John	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Carlisle, John (Luton N)	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Key, Robert
Cartwright, John	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Cash, William	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Knowles, Michael
Chope, Christopher	Knox, David
Churchill, W. S.	Lamont, Norman
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Lang, Ian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Latham, Michael
Conway, Derek	Lawrence, Ivan
Coombs, Simon	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Cope, John	Lester, Jim
Crouch, David	Lightbown, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Livsey, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen	Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Durant, Tony	Lord, Michael
Eggar, Tim	Lyell, Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter	McCrindle, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fletcher, Alexander	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Maclean, David John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Forth, Eric	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	McQuarrie, Albert
Freeman, Roger	Madel, David
Fry, Peter	Major, John
Gale, Roger	Malins, Humfrey
Galley, Roy	Malone, Gerald
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Maples, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Mather, Carol
Glyn, Dr Alan	Maude, Hon Francis
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gow, Ian	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gower, Sir Raymond	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Greenway, Harry	Merchant, Piers
Gregory, Conal	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Grist, Ian	Moate, Roger
Ground, Patrick	Moore, Rt Hon John
Gummer, Rt Hon John S	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hanley, Jeremy	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Moynihan, Hon C.	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Neale, Gerrard	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Newton, Tony	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Nicholls, Patrick	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Norris, Steven	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pawsey, James	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Portillo, Michael	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Powley, John	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Trippier, David
Price, Sir David	Trotter, Neville
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Twinn, Dr Ian
Rathbone, Tim	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rhodes James, Robert	Waddington, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Walden, George
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Wall, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion	Wallace, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Waller, Gary
Ryder, Richard	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Warren, Kenneth
Sayeed, Jonathan	Watts, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Whitney, Raymond
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Sims, Roger	Winterton, Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wolfson, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wood, Timothy
Speed, Keith	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Spencer, Derek	Yeo, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Stanley, Rt Hon John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Steen, Anthony	Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Shersby.
Stern, Michael

NOES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Ewing, Harry
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Fatchett, Derek
Bagier, Gordon A, T.	Faulds, Andrew
Batiste, Spencer	Favell, Anthony
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Forrester, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Foster, Derek
Bidwell, Sydney	Franks, Cecil
Blackburn, John	Gould, Bryan
Blair, Anthony	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Boyes, Roland	Haynes, Frank
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Hay ward, Robert
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Burt, Alistair	Home Robertson, John
Caborn, Richard	Hoyle, Douglas
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	John, Brynmor
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Lawler, Geoffrey
Clarke, Thomas	Leadbitter, Ted
Clay, Robert	Leighton, Ronald
Clegg, Sir Walter	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Clelland, David Gordon	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	McCartney, Hugh
Cohen, Harry	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Conlan, Bernard	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McKelvey, William
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	McWilliam, John
Corbett, Robin	Marek, Dr John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Martin, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Deakins, Eric	Maxton, John
Dewar, Donald	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dixon, Donald	Michie, William
Dover, Den	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Eadie, Alex	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Eastham, Ken	Nellist, David
Evans, John (St, Helens N)	O'Brien, William

Park, George	Thome, Stan (Preston)
Patchett, Terry	Thornton, Malcolm
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Thurnham, Peter
Pike, Peter	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Prescott, John	Wareing, Robert
Raynsford, Nick	Welsh, Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)	Whitfield, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Silvester, Fred	Winnick, David
Skinner, Dennis	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Spearing, Nigel	Winterton, Nicholas
Stott, Roger	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Strang, Gavin
Straw, Jack	Tellers for the Noes:
Sumberg, David	Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Terry Lewis.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Question accordingly agreed to.

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

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 93.

Division No. 201]	[10.22 pm
AYES
Amess, David	Gale, Roger
Ashby, David	Galley, Roy
Aspinwall, Jack	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	George, Bruce
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Glyn, Dr Alan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Gow, Ian
Bellingham, Henry	Gower, Sir Raymond
Benyon, William	Greenway, Harry
Best, Keith	Gregory, Conal
Bevan, David Gilroy	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Grist, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Ground, Patrick
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hanley, Jeremy
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hannam, John
Bright, Graham	Haselhurst, Alan
Brinton, Tim	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hayes, J.
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Browne, John	Heddle, John
Bruinvels, Peter	Henderson, Barry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Hickmet, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butcher, John	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Butterfill, John	Howard, Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Cartwright, John	Howells, Geraint
Cash, William	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Chope, Christopher	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hunter, Andrew
Conway, Derek	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Coombs, Simon	Irving, Charles
Cope, John	Jackson, Robert
Couchman, James	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Critchley, Julian	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Stephen	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Durant, Tony	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter	Key, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Fletcher, Alexander	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Knowles, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Knox, David
Forth, Eric	Lamont, Norman
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lang, Ian
Freeman, Roger	Latham, Michael
Fry, Peter	Lawrence, Ivan

Leadbitter, Ted	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Ryder, Richard
Lester, Jim	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lightbown, David	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lord, Michael	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Lyell, Nicholas	Sims, Roger
McCrindle, Robert	Skeet, Sir Trevor
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Speed, Keith
Maclean, David John	Speller, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick	Spencer, Derek
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
McQuarrie, Albert	Stanbrook, Ivor
Madel, David	Steen, Anthony
Major, John	Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mather, Carol	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Maude, Hon Francis	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Temple-Morris, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Townend, John (Brialington)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Moate, Roger	Trotter, Neville
Moore, Rt Hon John	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Waddington, David
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moynihan, Hon C.	Walden, George
Neale, Gerrard	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Newton, Tony	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Nicholls, Patrick	Wall, Sir Patrick
Norris, Steven	Wallace, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Waller, Gary
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Pawsey, James	Warren, Kenneth
Powley, John	Watts, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Prescott, John	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Price, Sir David	Whitney, Raymond
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Wolfson, Mark
Rathbone, Tim	Wood, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Yeo, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Shersby.
Roe, Mrs Marion
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

NOES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Deakins, Eric
Batiste, Spencer	Dixon, Donald
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Dover, Den
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bermingham, Gerald	Eadie, Alex
Blackburn, John	Eastham, Ken
Blair, Anthony	Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Boyes, Roland	Ewing, Harry
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Fatchett, Derek
Caborn, Richard	Faulds, Andrew
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Favell, Anthony
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Field, Frank (Birkennead)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Churchill, W. S.	Forrester, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Foster, Derek
Clarke, Thomas	Franks, Cecil
Clay, Robert	Gould, Bryan
Clegg, Sir Walter	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Clelland, David Gordon	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Haynes, Frank
Cohen, Harry	Hayward, Robert
Conlan, Bernard	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Home Robertson, John
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Hoyle, Douglas
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Patchett, Terry
Lawler, Geoffrey	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Leighton, Ronald	Pike, Peter
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Raynsford, Nick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Silvester, Fred
McWilliam, John	Skinner, Dennis
Marek, Dr John	Stott, Roger
Martin, Michael	Strang, Gavin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Straw, Jack
Maxton, John	Sumberg, David
Michie, William	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Thome, Stan (Preston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Thornton, Malcolm
Nellist, David	Thurnham, Peter
O'Brien, William	Trippier, David
Park, George	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Welsh, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.	Tellers for the Noes:
Winnick, David	Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Robert Litherland.
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Winterton, Nicholas

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

c834
1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 25 words