§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7325/88 on transport infrastructure and 6047/88 on aids for transport; and endorses the Government's opposition both to the creation of a transport infrastructure spending instrument and to the extension of Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 to cover the granting of aids for certain transport operating costs.We are considering two proposals. The first, document 7325/88, would create a spending programme for transport infrastructure. The Commission would use general criteria to select projects from a generalised list, and would ascribe to its selection funding drawn from the transport infrastructure line of the European budget. The programme would run until the end of 1992.The Government welcome some aspects. We accept the need to review whether there are gaps or bottlenecks in the Community transport network. We are, however, opposed to the measure as a whole. The Community should not proliferate spending instruments. Transport infrastructure can be and is supported from the Community's existing structural funds—for example, the European regional development fund. Structural funds are being substantially increased up to 1993. Where schemes are not eligible for existing funds, they should be provided at the expense of member states or by private funding.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)I am delighted to hear of the Government's opposition to this new extravagance by the EEC, and particularly to the proposed spending on the infrastructure of the Channel tunnel, but will the Minister tell us whether the proposal will be decided by majority vote by the EEC Council of Ministers—in which case the Government's objection can be overruled—or whether there must be unanimity? In other words, are we wasting our time tonight because the matter will be decided by majority vote on the Council?
§ Mr. BottomleyIt would be decided by majority vote, but I do not believe that we are wasting our time, and I hope that others will take the view that the Government are inviting the House to take. If this is one of the occasions on which my hon. Friend says that he is wasting his time by being here, the House may miss hearing what he has to say later.
It is impossible to assess the financial implications of the proposal as no figures for costs of schemes or allocation of funding by the Commission appear in it. We believe that the Council and not the Commission should have the determining role over financial allocation.
The second document. 6047/88, would prolong to 1992 existing arrangements which empower member states to grant subsidies for infrastructure investment in connection with combined transport operations. It would also allow aids to be granted against operating costs associated with combined transport.
The existing arrangements have been in place since 1982 but member states have made little use of them. Equally little use has been made of the existing combined transport facilities by either the United Kingdom or other states' hauliers.
The Government can accept, without much enthusiasm, the extension of existing powers for subsidies for 532 infrastructure investment. We are opposed to the extension of the scope to embrace operating costs as well. Although the draft directive refers to the granting of aids "as a temporary measure," the word "temporary" is not defined. The proposal could open a loophole for the continuing payment of operating cost subsidies by some member states.
Subsidies distort competition. Freight transport should operate on a commercial basis. If these types of operation or their infrastructure are in demand, there should be no problem about providing appropriate facilities on a commercial basis. The Government are opposed to both measures. The House should endorse the motion.
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd Stretford)If we had an excellent road system that enabled private vehicles and commercial freight to travel on it, the Minister's comments might have had some substance. Similarly, if we had a rail system by which freight and passenger transport could travel with ease throughout the country, the Minister's remarks might have been relevant. The reality is that we have one of the worst road and rail systems in western Europe.
The Minister referred to Britain being able to compete on equal terms, but he is some years out of date. He said that there was no room for subsidy in the allocation of freight costs, but I must point out to him that for many years West Germany heavily subsidised new freight handling facilities. Similarly, if the Minister looks at what is happening in France, he will see that the French have been happy to take advantage of the money that has been made available by the European Community. That is the reason why Britain lags so far behind West Germany and France in its ability to carry passengers and freight.
I do not disagree with all that the Minister said. The Opposition are adamant that matters of this kind should not be decided by the Commission. I represent: a constituency in the north-east. A quick glance at the Commission's proposals shows that the Commission has no idea that part of this nation lies outside the south-east. The Commission's action programme is confined exclusively to activities in the south-east—to London and the Channel tunnel. People who live elsewhere in the country object to proposals of that kind.
§ Mr. Roger Moate Faversham)I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he does not oppose all that my hon. Friend the Minister said. So that we can make sense of his remarks, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is for or against the motion?
§ Mr. LloydThere are two documents before the House. The Government, with a degree of sleight of hand, have confused the two and put them together, so it is import ant to spell out the Opposition's disagreement and agreement. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, that agreement and disagreement will become apparent.
It is unacceptable that the Commission should decide the priorities that are applicable to this country. The Minister regaled the House with his Euro anger. He said that it would be unacceptable to take money for this purpose from the Community. I remind him, however, of the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) in a debate on the European Communities budget in 1984. Money was being allocated by the European Community for the transport 533 infrastructure. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked his hon. Friend whether these matters ought to be decided by national Governments, and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North said:
Decisions on road building are for the Government to make, and will remain so. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome, as much as I do, any Community funds that are available to assist with the financing of such roads and to solve the problem of our refunds."—[Official Report, 20 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 576.]I must put into context my reason for giving that quotation. Can the Minister respond to the question that was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked about the criteria for majority voting? We know from experience that majority voting means that the British Government have to accept what is imposed by other European Community countries. Will the Minister make it clear in his closing remarks whether he expects Britain to receive support within the Council of Ministers on these matters?
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyIt always strikes me as better to consider the proposal on its merits first, and then to consider other countries' attitudes. As I understand it, our opposition to the proposal on infrastructure is shared by Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, so we expect that the proposal will not be adopted. We believe that most other countries share our lukewarm attitude to the proposal on combined transport. [Interruption.] It is unclear whether the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) is speaking in opposition to the Government's attitude or is talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whom we welcome back to transport. I do not know whether the combined transport proposal will ever be adopted by the Community.
§ Mr. LloydI want to welcome the Minister back to transport because he does not seem to have discussed transport yet. On the basis of what he has told us, it is unclear whether the Government expect that there will be a qualified majority in favour of the proposal that deals with combined transport initiatives. It is important for the House to know. We know that the Germans, French, Belgians, Danes and Dutch have all adopted similar infrastructure schemes and have received money from the European Community. The Minister has expressed some surprise about that, so I suggest that he reads the documentation that has been made available by the Vote Office. It gives precise details about the nations that have received support for such schemes in the past.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyI am not sure whether I am helping or hindering by intervening occasionally. On page 6 of the letter of 6 May 1988 from the Commission, it says, "Germany: no aids granted."
§ Mr. LloydI have had the advantage of reading the whole document, which the Minister has not. If he reads a little further he will see it spelt out comprehensively that the reason the Germans did not receive aid under that heading was that they received aid under a different heading. If the Minister wants to debate the issue seriously, will he read the documents before coming to the House? It is important to argue on the basis of facts, rather than play a silly Oxford Union debating game—in which 534 I have no ambition to take part. The Germans have received money from the Community over many years for such activities. The Germans no longer require that money because they have finished their programme of investment in aids to combined transport schemes and have a system that operates in the way in which ours should.
I am pleased that the Minister for Public Transport is with us this evening. Outside the south-east there is considerable concern about the Channel tunnel and about the capacity of the regions to have an adequate investment in the road and rail freight facilities that most people in the transport industry accept are needed in order to maximise the benefits of the rail system through the tunnel into Europe. The European Community scheme that we are discussing would at least have the merit of making money available for such schemes.
I stress again that those schemes are far better carried out when the priorities are established by national Governments. However, this Government want the worst of both worlds. They want to deny the European Community the ability to finance the schemes, yet they want to turn their back on regions such as my own in the north-west, Yorkshire, Humberside and Scotland. They say that unless the private sector is prepared to provide the finance it will not be available. The Government have made it clear—and the Minister has reiterated the point—that freight transport must operate on a commercial basis, without subsidies. Can the Minister tell us why Britain alone in western Europe takes that view?
The Minister says that the Government believe that private funds will be available to meet infrastructure demands. Can he tell us why other countries have invested in schemes to ensure that they allow for development of the freight industry based on an integrated approach? Such development does not take place overnight.
Does the Minister seriously believe that the market system has been able to allocate costs acceptably when he knows that schemes are being put forward throughout the country in terms, for example, of consultations with British Rail, under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which, when it comes to the crunch, the Government will refuse to finance, on narrow financial grounds, taking no account whatsoever of the regional and social costs that will be imposed by such a refusal? Such subsidies are needed in the context of the Channel tunnel. Such subsidies have been recognised by the French in their investments in north-eastern France, and by the West Germans in their investments between 1980 and 1985. I accept that the Minister did not know about that investment, but if he reads the document it will become apparent to him that the West Germans made that kind of investment. Is the Minister aware that we in Britain are the ones who are out of step in terms of such investment?
We shall vote against the Government precisely because of their dog-in-the-manger attitude to that kind of investment. We shall vote against the motion, which congratulates the Government on their pig-headed, obstinate and ostrich-like stance in not being prepared to accept the benefits of such investment in freight handling schemes. If the Minister will say that the Government have had a change of view, if instead of saying that freight should operate only on a commercial basis and without subsidy, if he will stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he has reviewed the situation and recognises the crassness and foolishness of the Government's position and the unfairness of its impact on regions outside the south-east, 535 and if the Minister, who represents a south-eastern seat and a south-eastern Government, is prepared to say that at last the Government recognise that they have got it wrong in terms of a freight structure for the rest of the nation, Opposition Members will be prepared to reconsider their decision on which way to vote. However, we know that the Minister will not do that. We know that the Government are locked into the market forces game.
Even at Question Time today, the Minister said that the public were often unaware of the causes of the holdups on our motorways. He waxed eloquent about the tragedies of the accidents on our motorways. Is he aware that our motorway system is often clogged up, not because of accidents, but because of incompetence in his Department, in the repair programme for which it has been responsible for 10 years, and because of its failure to invest in a decent roads programme over those years? That is why we cannot afford to turn our backs on the concept of combined transportation schemes or on the idea of an integrated road-rail system. Until the Minister frees the motorway system, the Opposition will have to take the Government to task for their inability to invest in the future.
Therefore, I challenge the Minister. If he is prepared to accept that market forces are not delivering the goods, have not delivered the goods, and will not deliver the goods in the future, we shall reconsider the way in which we shall vote tonight. However, in the absence of that kind of commitment, I advise the Minister that we shall vote against the Government and their pig-headed stance because we are determined to see properly funded public and private transport industries operating in conjunction with each other, in the interests of the whole nation.
§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)The two documents that we are considering are clearly separate. One deals with subsidies for infrastructure and the other with aids for transport. We should separate the two in our minds, although the Opposition have not quite done so. The infrastructure problem has been there ever since we joined the Community in 1973. If we do not consider it carefully, it could be as big a financial disaster as the common agricultural policy.
I have not heard the peripheral regions of Europe mentioned, but those are the areas where there is great need for infrastructure. When I was a Member of the European Parliament we drew up a document dealing with the bridges and tunnels of Europe. Achieving a mere tenth of its proposals would involve the most enormous budget. Infrastructures are most needed in places such as Sicily in southern Italy and Greece. Portugal is another. Their infrastructure cannot possibly be compared to ours.
If the Government support the proposal, they must be prepared to make considerable injections of money, to pay for infrastructure, decided at the whim of the Commissioners, who represent countries where the infrastructure is poor. If we are to have a Messina bridge and all the tunnels that are needed throughout the Community. we are talking about billions of ecu. We cannot write a blank cheque for infrastructure.
Transport, whether by road, rail or air, is essential in the modern Community, but once again the costs are horrendous. If we are to subsidise everyone who applies to Brussels for an aviation link or help with a transport project, a blank cheque will be required. It is possible to 536 think European by thinking like a Sicilian, Italian or Greek. That is what they want. It is why they joined. They want the wealthier countries to support their infrastructure. Ports, airports and motorways enable them to get their goods to the heart of the Community market. They are vital to them, but they are not quite so vital to us.
We have immense trouble with the common agricultural policy, but we might have a burden which is almost sufficient to break the Community budget's back. That is not what the Commissioners want. They mention the fact, as a sop to us, that there is the European Investment Bank, but it was around when Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for Transport. It was prepared to hand over 200 million ecu to start off the Channel tunnel. Now, that sum would not build the first two or three miles.
The Opposition are opposing for the wrong reasons. They must ask themselves whether they want the United Kingdom, France and Germany to bear another heavy burden. The proposals would represent a colossal burden for countries with good infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Minister is right. Moves forward must be hesitant, careful and silent because, at the slightest sign of our being ready to agree to this enormous budget, we will land the wealthier nations with a colossal bill.
§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has just treated us to an extraordinary speech, and one which I did not expect to hear. He said, with enormous complacency, that all the problems are abroad. One wonders whether he has ever driven on one of our motorways or seen passengers in second-class InterCity carriages sitting on the floor because there are not enough seats.
The hon. Gentleman's view is extraordinary, especially to people in my part of the country, which many people regard as a peripheral area of the European Community. It has suffered from lack of investment and it suffers from lack of infrastructure as a result of the policies of a Government who are not prepared to invest.
I welcome the EEC initiative to extend the period during which member states are allowed to give aid to develop good transport infrastructure because we need it. I regret that while the Government welcome the aim of developing a Community-wide transport policy they have not seen fit to seize the opportunity for the benefit of this country's infrastructure. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman is to be believed, they do not even see the need to seize the opportunity.
I have argued that we need an integrated transport strategy for Britain. As our roads clog up, the Government's policies stall. Their attitude could not be better summed up than in the letter of 2 September 1986 in which the Government
informed the Commission services that no aids arc granted to promote combined Transport in the United Kingdom.Just what we have always said. That is the Government's position. They spell it out for us. That lack of action is typical of a Government who are all too willing to shed large crocodile tears over the transport difficulties of ordinary men and women as they attempt to travel without providing the necessary financial handkerchief to mop up the resulting puddle. The attitude is typified by the lack of any major transport legislation this Session, despite the growing public concern about the huge traffic jams on our 537 roads, an M25 which has been stalled from the day it was opened, crowded airways and a public transport network so overcrowded in some areas that it presents a threat to safety.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyWhat sort of legislation does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? Is he proposing that we should get rid of the statutory processes? He talked about the M25 being stalled from the day it was opened. Is he aware that vehicles travel 6,000 million kms a year on it?
§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)Very slowly.
§ Mr. TaylorYes, very slowly. That reminds me of the advertisement for the Vauxhall Nova where a car drives on the roofs of others. Perhaps that will be the solution.
The crocodile tears for transport bear a striking resemblance to the equally large tears that the Government shed over the environment and their failure to introduce legislation to improve the position. The two issues are connected because part of what the EC presents through these documents is precisely the means to tackle many of the environmental problems that people face in their everyday lives.
As the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, our European partners, notably France, West Germany, Belgium and Denmark, have seized the ability to grant aid to develop their infrastructure. In particular, they have improved terminals to facilitate rail freight. It is a shame that the British Government have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the kind of investment that our people cry out for.
The Government claim that
freight transport should operate on a commercial basis without subsidy.Freight already receives a subsidy as road building is undertaken by taxpayers. Only this month the Department of Transport announced that more than £4 billion will be spent on main roads over the next three years. I have got that wrong: the Government "invest" in road building and "subsidise" railways. What a difference in attitude.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Talk about the Community."] I am talking about the Government's attitude to the motion on these EC documents and the opportunities that they present.The Government claim that if there were sufficient demand
private funds would be available to meet infrastructure costs.Would those funds be sufficient to meet the other costs associated with road usage? In Spain, which is often cited as a private road paradise, the accident rate on parallel public roads has increased enormously and Spanish transport officials admit that the scheme is "utterly disastrous". Is that the kind of paradise that the Minister envisages for us or does he hope to eliminate accidents altogether by binding up the road system so much that nothing is moving and nobody is in any danger of being run over?The Government seem to imply that only direct financial implications are important, but surely a wider perspective is called for and Europe offers us that. This so-called Green Government, as chief defenders of environmental protection, must surely be aware of the environmental hazards of heavy lorries with their noise 538 pollution, and the destruction of areas of special scientific interest as a result of road building. The Government, as so-called chief defenders of the National Health Service, must surely be aware of the £2.8 billion spent by it in 1985 as a result of road accidents. I know that the Minister is aware of that as I have heard him talk about it. That is the cost of too many wasteful, tragic experiences for too many families in Britain and it could be avoided. The Government, as so-called chief defenders of the economy—no doubt we shall hear more about thattomorrow—must surely be aware of the estimate by John Banham, the director-general of the CBI, that £5 billion is being poured down the drain in congestion costs.
The EC legislation, 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel provide a unique opportunity to integrate and streamline our transport operation with the rest of Europe.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Does the hon. Gentleman want to integrate Common Market heavy lorry standards by increasing the size of our juggernauts to 44 tonnes and allowing bigger, more intrusive lorries on our roads, or does he favour only a partial integration excluding juggernauts?
§ Mr. TaylorThe hon. Gentleman misunderstands the context in which I used the word "integration". I am talking about integration of transport in terms of road, rail and air. Taking vehicles off the roads would tackle precisely the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am sure that he would welcome such a policy.
Combined transport, particularly where it reduces congestion, increases road safety, conserves energy and allows better use of existing rail capacity, is an opportunity provided by the documents that we are debating. People in many areas throughout the country are concerned that the benefits that the Channel tunnel can bring will be felt only in the south-east where many people fear the prospect of too much growth and too much congestion. The Government plan to construct a link that will certainly leave out areas such as my constituency. Without electrification through Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance, Britain's premier tourist area will be cut off from one of Britain's premier tourist routes.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyLooking at article 3 on page 4, I do not see any of the European Communities generalised list coming anywhere near the premier tourist resorts of England. Perhaps we are talking about different proposals.
§ Mr. Tony LloydJust to stick the boot in twice, my point is very much the same. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will join me at least in criticising the Commission whose view of Britain encompasses the land that lies between Dover and London. There is no mention whatsoever of any investment outside the south-east. The hon. Gentleman and I are on similar ground in that we want investment into what the Government regard as peripheral areas. I live in such an area and I know that they are not peripheral but the Commission mentions nothing about that.
§ Mr. TaylorI am not suggesting that the Commission is adequate, but it is moving in the right direction. The Government's response is to write out any concept of integrated strategy for public transport which is the first prerequisite for tackling the problems that we agree exist.
539 It is simply not enough for the Government to encourage private finance and abdicate responsibility for the rest of the infrastructure. That is the option that the Government put forward. They say that private sector finance is fine, but what the public sector could do to solve the problems is written out of the agenda altogether.
The EC initiative concerns an integrated transport strategy. It recognises the role of the public sector in providing safe, reliable, cheap and efficient transport. It points to the environmental advantages of such a strategy. Because of those things, it comes as no surprise that the Government have proposed the motion to reject them. I hope that the House will not follow that example and will oppose the motion as a short-sighted, mean-spirited response to the opportunity that Europe's attitude to transport begins to present.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I do not feel that anything he said had any relevance to the documents before the House and I suspect that the series of disjointed cliches that he offered to the House owed more to an overpaid research assistant than to any relevance to the debate.
I should like to direct my remarks to the important major proposal by the European Commission for a major new fund for infrastructure investment throughout the European Community. The fact that no price has been put on it is alarming considering the past experience of the Community. An unlimited fund is proposed to spend on projects that the European Community deems to be in the interests of the Community as a whole.
It is strange that the proposal is being opposed by the Government—an opposition I warmly support—yet the Labour party, which is usually in opposition to the Community, is supporting an open-ended commitment to spending without limit. Whatever tortuous arguments the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) may advance, the fact remains that he and his colleagues are supporting a major Euro-project which involves itself in the United Kingdom's spending plans. It offers a blank cheque to the Community to increase spending throughout.
§ Mr. Tony LloydThe hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening. I made it clear that because of the incompetence of the infrastructure programme and its unacceptability to most of the nation, certainly those outside the south-east, we could not support the infrastructure scheme. However, I pointed out that there are two documents under consideration.
§ Mr. MoateTherefore, the hon. Gentleman will support the Government on the infrastructure proposal.—[Interruption.] I am sorry to pursue the point but I want to be clear that the Opposition will not oppose us in the Lobby tonight.
§ Mr. MoateAt last we have clarification. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman will not vote against the Government.
§ Mr. MoateThis is very difficult. The Opposition will vote against the Government in support of Community 540 spending even though they are against it. That is wonderful. The position is clear if one can have clarity from such a dense fog.
In fact, things are even more ironic. I must now cause a little less pleasure on the Government Front Bench. Whatever the House does will have little relevance. My hon. Friend the Minister was sanguine about the prospects of defeating the proposal in the Council of Ministers. I have heard suggestions that we will lose in the Council of Ministers and that there could be a majority in favour of the new infrastructure fund. I hope that I am wrong and that my hon. Friend is right, but neither of us knows. It could be that the House, led by the Government, will defeat the proposal. I am not sure whether the Opposition are for or against the measure but they intend to vote against it and could well win the day because it may be passed in the Community. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we might have forced upon us the new infrastructure fund for investing in major British transport projects.
§ Mr. LloydI wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would care to remind hon. Members which side of the House voted in favour of the qualified majority system of voting in the Community.
§ Mr. MoateI can assure the hon. Gentleman that he and I would be in total agreement that we should never have a majority voting factor in constitutional arrangements. However, he is not making it any easier for us by supporting the proposal against the Government. If he is against the proposal, why does he not add his voice by saying that he supports the Government's position?
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyIt might make all the difference.
§ Mr. MoateYes, and perhaps we can persuade Opposition Members to join us tonight in voting down this proposal.
Of course, none of us is satisfied with the current rail and road systems in this country, least of all, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Minister. We acknowledge that there is a vast amount to be done and we are all striving to do more. The answer does not lie in securing a small handout for projects that probably will not rate high in our priorities.
Leaving aside arguments about the theology of the European Community, surely any prosperous nation such as ours, the Germans and the French, should not look to the European Community to determine the quality of our roads or when and where we should find the investment and resources to develop our road and rail systems. If we were discussing a Third world country, a poor nation or an aid programme, the proposal might be logical, but we are not. Any argument about whether more funds should be directed to motorways or how those funds should be raised is one for the United Kingdom. We do not need the European Community to tell us how we should order our priorities. All that has nothing to do with whether one passionately believes in the European Community. The road programmes of the member states should be determined by their Governments.
The arguments across the House or with Ministers about whose roads should be highest in the order or priorities are for us to determine. Having sorted out our priorities, it would be a nonsense if the Community came along with our money, not the Community's, and said that another project should receive priority. That would he 541 fundamentally wrong. The Government are right to oppose that concept, and I hope that they will carry the day.
If the proposal goes through, who knows where it will end? There is no limit on expenditure. Where does that leave a Conservative Government or, perish the thought, even a Labour Government in determining priorities for transport spending? I do not believe that Opposition Members, any more than I, want those priorities to be determined elsewhere.
§ Mr. HillTurkey has applied to join the European Community. I wonder what the costs of its infrastructure would be if the Commission wanted to help Turkey.
§ Mr. MoateMy hon. Friend is emphasising the tremendous danger of passing such a resolution. Indeed, we face danger whatever we do tonight. If the proposal is carried in the Commission by majority vote, we shall face that danger. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will find a solution to that difficult problem.
There is agreement across the House that we object to the fact that it is a Commission-produced proposal. It is extraordinary that a motion opposed by the British Government and, I understand, many other Governments of the member states is before us simply because it has been produced by the Commission. In all the years of debate about the European Community, I have never understood how we came to accept a constitutional arrangement whereby major policy proposals are produced by unelected civil servants. Tonight we have a classic example of how, time and again, matters come before us that are not Community proposals and that have not been produced by democratically elected Governments. Indeed, they have been opposed by many member states. Can we have some sanity in all this? Will my right hon. Friends propose some amendment to this extraordinary constitution so that the Commission stops producing material that only causes major disturbances within the Community?
One project that has any relevance to this country is the link which, presumably, involves the Channel tunnel and London. Here we have a project that the Government are quite clearly stating is to be financed by the private sector. I accept that Opposition Members might have different views about how the Channel tunnel should be financed. Nevertheless, the House of Commons and the country are determined that, if there is to be a Channel tunnel, it is to be financed by the private sector. But here we have a proposal that suggests that the European Commission would use British funds—funds that would come from this country—in one way or another to subsidise the privately financed Channel tunnel project. Whichever way we look at it, that makes a nonsense of that proposal.
Conservative Members surely cannot accept that there will be a breach of the fundamental promise that it will not involve public funds. This proposal would involve public funds. If it is to be a privately financed, private risk project, how on earth can Opposition Members accept that there will be a subsidy from public funds to bail out private investors? In terms, it is nonsense, and I cannot see how they can accept it.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware that, even 542 under the present proposals—quite apart from the proposal for the new transport fund, which we oppose also—there can be a claim by the Government for infrastructure expenditure as assistance in the Channel tunnel development, and the Government are actually claiming it. The money that is given by Britain to the Community, even under the old system, will be used to subsidise some of the investment in the Channel tunnel.
§ Mr. MoateAgain, the hon. Gentleman said that he is opposed to the infrastructure fund, but I remind him that he will vote in favour of it tonight.
§ Mr. PrescottNo.
§ Mr. PrescottThere are two documents.
§ Mr. MoateI know, but there is to be one vote.
I return to the fundamental point that, according to the treaty and every promise that has been made to the country and to the House, public sector funds will not be involved in the Channel tunnel project. The measure is in direct conflict with that, and, therefore, I cannot see how on earth the House can approve it. On all counts, my hon. Friends have got this matter right tonight. We must strongly opposes the proposals here and in Brussels.
§ 11.3 pm
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has been having some fun at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on how the Opposition will vote at the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough and has taken part in a sufficient number of EEC debates to know that the Opposition's problem is that the Government have grouped the two documents in one motion. Therefore, there is no opportunity for any Opposition Member or any other hon. Member to express a separate opinion on either document. If Opposition Members want to vote in favour of one document and against the other document, they have only one opportunity. That may be interpreted by the hon. Gentleman as voting for both documents. I am fairly certain that he accepts that my hon. Friends have made the Opposition's position absolutely clear. We shall vote against the infrastructure document and vote in favour of the integrated transport document. It is as simple as that, and the hon. Gentleman accepts it.
It is unfortunate that Scottish National party Members are not present. I do not intentionally attack them, because I did not give them notice that I would mention them in the debate. Recently there has been some debate in Scotland about Scotland being independent in Europe. It seems that Scottish Nationalist Members are in favour of a Scotland independent in Europe when they are discussing it with Kirsty Wark on "Left, Right and Centre" on BBC Scotland, or with Colin McKay on STV—
§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)And Margo McDonald.
§ Mr. EwingAnd Margo McDonald, as my hon. Friend said—but not when we debate the issue at five past 11 on a Monday night. This matter is important to Scotland and its economy and in 1992 the transport system will be 543 absolutely vital to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) called a peripheral nation, although he did not mention Scotland.
The Minister made a throw-away remark and I want to make sure that he did not mean what he said. He said that there is no place for a subsidy in transport policy. A subsidy operates in the distant islands of Scotland because there is no way that Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles—the outer isles of Scotland—could transport goods from or to the mainland without the subsidy that has been paid by successive Governments for many years. I hope that the Minister was not giving a broad hint that the subsidy is to be terminated, because if that happened it would be disastrous for the distant islands of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Faversham put his finger on the central issue of the debate. I share the hon. Gentleman's opposition to proposals which come from an unelected Commission and not from Ministers. If the proposals are carried by a majority vote, what will be the Government's position? Will they say that because they voted against the proposals they will not use the provisions in them? That would certainly put Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom at a serious disadvantage.
We can clearly see from the document dealing with transport policy that since the provisions were introduced the French Government have made extensive use of the provision for transport policy, specially in relation to SNCF and two of its subsidiary companies. As a result of the provisions they have obtained substantial funds to develop not only import and container terminal systems, but what the document calls a piggy-back system linking ports and container terminal systems with other centres throughout France.
If I were in the French Government I would vote against the continuation of these policies because France has finished its programme. That puts France at a distinct advantage, particularly as we approach 1992. That is why the French Government have decided that the veto is no longer necessary. They have got everything that they want from the programmes and may well try to make sure that the rest of Europe does not get what it wants and needs.
The relationship between road haulage and the port industry in Scotland is worrying. About 10 years ago 75 per cent. of the goods that were manufactured in Scotland for export went out from Scottish ports. Now only 20 per cent. of those goods go out from Scottish ports and the reason for that is quite simple. The ship owners, the barons who own the vessels, are paying the road haulage costs. For example, the ship owner pays the road haulage costs for Dewar's whisky going by road from Perth to the non-scheme port at Felixstowe. That is because it is much cheaper for the ship owner to pay the road haulage costs than to pay the steaming costs of the vessel that would go to Grangemouth in my constituency where these goods could be loaded.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)Surely the hon. Gentleman has just put forward the most eloquent case for the abolition of the dock labour scheme.
§ Mr. EwingThis has absolutely nothing to do with the dock labour scheme. It is obvious that 11.10 pm is a bit late for the hon. Gentleman. If he comes back at 4 pm tomorrow, his thinking may be clearer and we can then have a discussion about the dock labour scheme.
544 This has everything to do with ship owners wanting to pay the road haulage because it is cheaper. It has nothing to do with exporting the goods from Grangemouth or Felixstowe. It is cheaper to pay the road haulage costs rather than to steam a vessel up to Grangemouth, Leith, Perth or any of the other ports that are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the United Kingdom ports.
It is obvious that the ship owners will close most, if not all, of the Scottish ports. Once that has happened they will stop paying the road haulage costs and Scottish exports will, once more, be at a serious disadvantage.
If the proposals are carried by a majority in the EEC, the Minister is under an obligation to make the best possible use for them, especially in terms of an integrated Scottish transport system.
I have already referred to the absence of SNP Members for this debate. This issue is crucial to the Scottish economy, and I hope that the Minister will deal with the points I have raised.
§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)I applaud the fact that tonight our Government will resist the creation of another European fund. I sincerely hope that our Government will persuade the other European nations of the importance of getting the benefits from Europe by developing its markets and that those benefits cannot come from the creation of structural funds. The more important thing to do is to create the prosperity for individual nations to build their own roads, airports, ports or whatever.
§ Mr. GillNo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) made a valuable contribution. He implied that the structural funds are a lottery. All hon. Members know that that is true. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, as a result of the new fund, a bridge may be built over the straits of Messina.
How will the car manufacturer in Cowley feel when taxpayers' money paid into a European fund means that roads will be built from Catania to Calais to speed the passage of cabbages, when manufactured cars cannot get from Cowley to Southampton port?
§ Mr. PrescottWhy is that?
§ Mr. GillBecause where and how the money in the European fund is spent is a lottery. We should be concerned about that.
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. GillNo. I have a short and important message to give, and I crave the indulgence of the House to pass it on.
Although hon. Members may argue about it, they know that it is a lottery and there is no guarantee that we will get the projects that we want. The majority of applications for grant-aid in relation to the Channel tunnel have come from regions other than the south-east. Most of the cash allocated by the European Commission—no less than £9 million out of the total of £13 million—has gone to the south-east. That is not what this country wanted. That has occurred as a result of the lottery in Brussels.
§ Mr. GillNo, I shall not give way.
These funds are a roundabout. There is a grand illusion among many politicians and members of the public that some projects in this country could not, and would not, be undertaken were it not for European money. That is a grand illusion, because the money is being taken out of our pockets and remitted to our local tax offices, which send it to the Treasury, which in turn sends it to Brussels, where the big shuffle starts. We all become involved in supporting our local councils and industries in an attempt to regain that money.
§ Mr. GillI have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
Every time that I go home I am reminded of that fact because there, for all to see, is a sign that says, "This project would not have been possible without the European regional development fund." It is appropriate that a roundabout was funded in that project.
I shall end my speech now and give all those hon. Members who have attempted to intervene an opportunity to speak. I applaud most enthusiastically the Government's efforts to resist the creation of another structural fund—more power to their elbow in convincing other nations to do the same.
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)Two issues appear to be at stake tonight: first, the concept of integrated transport systems; and, secondly, how these measures would be funded and would operate.
There are dangers in an open-ended commitment, but I note that negotiations are still taking place about finance and operation, and the proportion of funding. It is undesirable for the Commissioners rather than democratically elected and accountable representatives to decide those priorities. I find depressing the Government's mean-minded and narrow response to the proposal, and we should strongly oppose their response.
I am concerned that Europe, particularly western Europe, is well in advance of us in terms of infrastructure, investment and intergrated canal, rail and road links. We have such potential in this country. For example, in Yorkshire, the canal network goes right to the industrial heartland and the wharf and rail links, and the barge interchanges, could be developed further, to the advantage of the whole region.
If the proposal is carried in Europe, I wonder whether the Government will be able to capitalise on it and obtain grant-aid for infrastructure. I note that, where the road infrastructure is overused, highly polluted, or presents particular problems, there would be justification for grant support. Roads such as the A1 and the M1, which have reached their design capacity and at certain times of the week are choked and clogged, need to be tackled. There is scope for extending the M11 up the east coast and across the Humber bridge to Teesside to take the pressure off those two roads and to assist the industrial development of that region.
I should also like to see a genuine integrated transport policy under which freight is moved by rail as far as possible and there are rail interchanges and a proper public transport sytem to serve people's needs. The present system is breaking down and degenerating. To suggest that 546 the free market will solve those problems and invest in such infrastructure is nonsense. Deregulation has led to more route mileage for buses and a decline in the number of passengers carried by them. That is not a good example of the market meeting people's needs. Nor do I see the market making a massive investment in infrastructure.
There are specific problems, such as the Humber bridge. The bridge board is being blackmailed by the Government to urge it to increase its tolls, which are already deterring use of the bridge. That is holding back the economic development of the Humberside region, and that is the result of the free market philosophy. The Government do not understand that a little public investment will do much to encourage industry and development, and that is why I say that they are narrow minded and mean minded. They could have much more imagination. They could decide to have lorry routes with break-bulk depots to keep juggernauts out of small town centres. I saw recently in my town centre a juggernaut making a delivery to a working man's club. The enormous lorry was used to deliver two boxes of crisps.
Why not claim some grant for an investment in depots outside all major urban areas? After all, it may be that lorries will eventually meet EEC standards. We could control them by keeping them to designated lorry routes and requiring them to go to break-bulk centres where their loads would be transferred to smaller, lighter vehicles for final delivery. That system would lead to environmental advantage. It would lead also to the creation of jobs and make Britain a nicer place in which to live.
The Government lack the imagination to improve a degenerating transport system. I say to those who sneer at other countries' systems that Greece, for example, has a better bus service than Lincolnshire. We must deploy a great deal of investment, imagination and foresight to improve our transport system, and that is not forthcoming from the Government.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)It is with a sense of relief that I hear that the Government are resisting the proposals that are set out in the Community documents. But will we be out-voted if there is majority voting when the issue arises on 8 or 9 December? If we are out-voted, the money will be made available. I want to know whether it will be made available in the United Kingdom in those circumstances. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to find ourselves with Parliament and the Government in unison in opposing these proposals, only to find that the level playing field that we have been seeking to achieve is undermined because all the money is spent by other member states. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question.
We are dealing with a regulation, not a directive. It is so open-ended in its characteristics that I am reminded of the common agricultural policy. Questions that go to the heart of the financing of the European Community invariably become tied up with regulations. There is not a sufficient degree of control and they find themselves within the function of the Commission. When that happens, we are opening another Pandora's box.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyWe are discussing a proposal that would take away from each of the 12 national Governments the power to decide what to do with money. That is why I suspect that 11 member states, if not 12, will 547 view it with almost as much disfavour as the House. If by any chance it were to be agreed, I am sure that the British Government would find that their application would be considered. There is no guarantee that we would secure a large proportion of the money that would be available or that much of it would go to the north or south-west of Britain. That is why many of us cannot understand the Opposition's promise to vote against taking note of the documents.
§ Mr. CashI am delighted to hear my hon. Friend make that point. I was also delighted by what was leaked in the papers today to the effect that the M40 will have three lanes. My constituents will be very interested in that.
I am delighted that the Minister and the Government have taken a robust position. They have the British Parliament behind them. If the Opposition decide to divide the House, they will demonstrate only that the British Parliament and the electorate agree, as usual, with the Government.
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)Having listened to the hon. Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), one has to ask which party guillotined the Single European Act through the House. Which party in government is represented on the Community's Council of Ministers? That representation does not come from Opposition Members. The Government agreed that there should be majority decision making by the Council of Ministers. Although this draft regulation may be initiated by the European Commission, it cannot be implemented until it receives the approval of the Council of Ministers, to which the Government subscribe. There can be no get—out on the question of responsibility.
The Government are hell-bent on getting into the single European market to exploit their ideological fantasies, but they say no to every other degree of Europeanisation, to social Europe and to regional aid. It ill-becomes a party which has complied with the common agricultural policy for all these years, a policy which takes up 76 per cent. of the EEC's budget, to turn round now and say no to infrastructure expenditure which might help regions represented by so many Opposition Members and, dare I say it, even some represented by Tory Members.
The hon. Member for Ludlow said that we should feel aggrieved that British taxpayers' money might be spent in Calabria and Sicily. Does he realise how aggrieved the taxpayers on Merseyside and the north-east feel when they find that tax reliefs go mainly to the richer people in the south-east of England? Does he not understand that they are aggrieved when they discover that their money is spent on the Channel tunnel, while no real effort is made to improve the infrastructure in their areas to allow them to reap the full rewards of our participation in the European Community?
§ Mr. MealeMansfield, like many other areas, might apply for assisted area status, but it might not be granted because the Government refuse to change the map. Areas are then told to apply to Europe and to campaign for funds such as those under discussion tonight. Perhaps the Minister should offer guarantees to Nottinghamshire councils which want to open a rail link from Nottingham to Worksop. Will the Minister give them some guidance, 548 or are they wasting their time going to Europe if the Government, who have already refused help for the region once, refuse it again via the EEC?
§ Mr. WareingMy hon. Friend will understand that the Government oppose the setting up of the infrastructure fund for any aid for the regions simply on ideological grounds.
There is one thing for which the Government can always be given credit. They never allow reality to get in the way of ideology. They are not willing to have a public expenditure programme. They say, "Leave it to private funding: leave it to the market." They want the people to be the servants of the market, rather than the other way round.
Nothing is more in need of transport harmony than the port system within the Community. Many European countries regard the ports, not as individual transport undertakings, but as part of their national infrastructure. That is why so many EEC countries subsidise the ports, and even cover the costs of dredging, navigation lighting and many other processes. France subsidises the port of Le Havre through zero VAT rating, and covers 80 per cent. of the capital cost of dredging the port. The subsidies are reflected in the lower port charges that they allow. A recent report from Touche Ross illustrated how advantageous it would be for British ports if they received the same degree of subsidy. According to the report, British port charges would be reduced by some 20 to 25 per cent. Instead, many of our imports and exports are trans-shipped through European ports.
Antwerp has become the third port of the United Kingdom, because 15 per cent. of our goods and 8 per cent. of our exports go through it. The Belgian Government are providing 60 per cent. of the funds—£35 million out of £53 million—for the building of a new container terminal at the port.
The Government are allowing our port authorities to go into the European Community naked in 1992. They are unwilling to compete. The Belgian Government plan expenditure of £1 billion on Zeebrugge over 20 years. Where is our Government's infrastructural policy for this country's ports?
My constituency has a major interest in the development of the port of Liverpool. According to a recent survey by a leading firm of stockbrokers, Rensburg, Liverpool is now one of the most stable and successful port operations in Europe, but it needs a tremendous amount of investment to enable it to become what it should be—a bridge for the future in the Community. It would be possible for the United Kingdom to be an Atlantic-Europe land bridge for trade from the Atlantic, provided that the investment was there.
Hon. Members are blaming the Commission, but, looking down the list of transport developments, we find them only in Greece, Spain, France and Italy. I blame the British Government. Europeans think that the British Government are cool towards Europe and that they want it all their way. After the Prime Minister made that speech in Bruges, could she have expected the Commission to believe that if it made proposals for the development of road links in the north of England—for example, the M57 to link up with Liverpool airport at Speke—the British Government would take them seriously? Her speech was silly and chauvinistic.
549 Our rail and road networks need to be developed. The Government ought to abandon the ideological cul de sac into which they have led the British people and accept that in a single European market there cannot be majority voting only for the policies in which the British Government believe. Sometimes they will be beaten. I hope that they will be beaten on this issue. That is why I am glad that the Opposition will go into the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the motion.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon)I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late stage in the debate. I shall be brief. I want to make only one simple point about the transport infrastructure document that relates to the integrated transport market in 1992.
It is important that there should be an integrated transport network in 1992 because of its effect on my constituency. I do not agree with the priorities that are set out in the document, but I understand the underlying concept. The only way in which Holyhead can take off is by the provision of an integrated transport network and an improved roads programme to link the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom with the continent of Europe.
Unemployment in Holyhead amounts to about 18 per cent., yet it is a pivotal gateway for the Irish Republic if it is to enter the European network. The concept is right. Therefore, I shall vote against the Government. If they are not prepared to give us the money to finance the infrastructure when the European Community is, I am bound to support its proposals.
§ Mr. Tony LloydBy leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on record the Opposition's condemnation of the Government who have linked two separate documents and who, by doing so, have caused so much confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
The Opposition oppose the Commission's infrastructure proposals. They will do nothing for the nation. However, we are unable to support the Government's dog-in-the-manger stand on integrated transport development aid. They have crassly turned their back on it. If the Minister is prepared to say that the Government intend to revise their policies, the Opposition will be prepared to revise their stand.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyBy leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that I would not dream of doing what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) suggests.
The whole House is looking forward to watching the Labour party, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), going into the Division Lobby because they support giving power to the European Commission, uncontrolled by the Council of Ministers, to use generalised criteria and to pick from a generalised list, most of which will do the United Kingdom no good.
550 Labour Members spoke about integrated transport, but combined transport is really piggy-back services. Until we have smaller wheels on our trains, we are not likely to benefit much from that. Indeed, the Germans have said that they will no longer use it. [Interruption.] I should like to say how much we welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stretford is still talking because we get a lot of interference from his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
We also welcome the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who spoke on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democratic party.
It is worth reading the report of the Scrutiny Committee which recommended that the two proposals should be taken together. When we put forward the explanatory memorandum in July—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford appears to be saying that he has read the Scrutiny Committee's report, but that fact did not emerge from his speech. In the four months since I signed the explanatory memorandum on behalf of the Government, and since it came to the House in July, I do not think that I have received a single representation against it from the Labour party. I certainly have not received any such representations from the Social and Liberal Democratic party.
I advise the hon. Member for West Derby that, if he is to have any consistency, he must follow his line of argument and join the Government in the Division Lobby in voting against the proposal that the European Commission should have an unfettered power. If he votes with the Labour party, we shall not take his speeches seriously in future.
That is very different from the clear and straightforward speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). As I said earlier, like him we welcome seeing what gaps and bottlenecks remain, but we do not need the European Community to take our money and spend it either on things that we do not regard as priorities or in areas that are not regarded as priorities by national Governments.
§ Mr. Wareingrose—
§ Mr. BottomleyI shall not give way.
We shall see a great deal of unanimity—I hope that there will be near unanimity—among other countries. When the Council of Ministers meets and has to decide whether it will combine and give up its powers to the Commission, I am sure that most of them will say, "Not on your life." We should say the same in other areas, for example, when people talk about social space, because the biggest social space is self-determination, where possible. Even the national Governments who voted for the Single European Act do not want to give up their determined powers to vagueness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) rightly pointed out.
Conservative Members are keen on infrastructure spending, which is beginning to grow. The hon. Member for Stretford does not think that we are building enough roads but most of them are being built in the Manchester and Stretford areas. If we go back to the days of the last Labour Government—
§ Mr. PrescottThere cannot have been many new roads if they are all in Manchester.
§ Mr. BottomleyThe hon. Member cannot keep his mouth shut for long. In fact, many hon. Members may remember the hon. Gentleman's new year resolution several years ago when he said that he would try not to shout so much. He was not very good at keeping his resolution that year, and he is not very good at it now.
The hon. Member for Truro, speaking on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, got himself in a slight muddle, and it is probably best to leave it at that—
§ Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)indicated dissent.
§ Mr. BottomleyIt is no good the leader of the SDLP shaking his head because either he wrote the speech, in which case he knows what his hon. Friend said, or since he was not here and did not listen to it, he cannot know. Perhaps we could see his photogenic leadership take a form other than the hon. Gentleman nodding his head as if in support of what his hon. Friend said, because he did not say very much that was worthwhile.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spoke about subsidies. No one wants to get rid of all subsidies. The reason for identifying subsidies is to see what is being paid for what instead of having generalised subsidies, which is, in effect, what Labour Members are asking us to support when they say that they will vote against the motion. The Government will be able to point to the Labour party's actions for many months and years to come. Opposition Members will regret their decisions of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about developing the markets of Europe. His was a good speech, and it was the right thing to say. That line should be followed by many more people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) raised a specific point which I hope that I was able to answer satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did not say much of relevance.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was right to talk of the need to get the ports working properly. One reason why we think that the Government and certainly the European Commission should move away from deciding which ports is that the ports must build their futures on their own competitive advantages, most of which come from within themselves.
The hon. Member for West Derby talked about subsidies. Although many of us are delighted that the port of Liverpool is doing better, we should remember that £165 million of taxpayers' money has gone into Liverpool in the past 10 years. I do not think that many of us would like the Commission to do that in other areas for very long, for any form of transport.
I ask the House, including the Labour party, to support the motion and to reject the idea of giving up all power to the Commission.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 144.
530| Division No. 1] | [10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) |
| Allen, Graham | Campbell-Savours, D. N. |
| Alton, David | Canavan, Dennis |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Clay, Bob |
| Ashton, Joe | Clelland, David |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Cohen, Harry |
| Barron, Kevin | Coleman, Donald |
| Battle, John | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Beckett, Margaret | Cook, Robin (Livingston) |
| Beggs, Roy | Corbett, Robin |
| Beith, A. J. | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Bell, Stuart | Cousins, Jim |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Cox, Tom |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Crowther, Stan |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cryer, Bob |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cummings, John |
| Blair, Tony | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Boateng, Paul | Cunningham, Dr John |
| Boyes, Roland | Dalyell, Tam |
| Bradley, Keith | Darling, Alistair |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Dewar, Donald |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Dixon, Don |
| Buchan, Norman | Dobson, Frank |
| Buckley, George J. | Doran, Frank |
| Caborn, Richard | Douglas, Dick |
| Callaghan, Jim | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | McTaggart, Bob |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | McWilliam, John |
| Eadie, Alexander | Madden, Max |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | Marek, Dr John |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Fatchett, Derek | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Fearn, Ronald | Martlew, Eric |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Maxton, John |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | Meacher, Michael |
| Fisher, Mark | Meale, Alan |
| Flannery, Martin | Michael, Alun |
| Flynn, Paul | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Foster, Derek | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Foulkes, George | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Fraser, John | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Fyfe, Maria | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Galbraith, Sam | Morley, Elliott |
| Galloway, George | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| George, Bruce | Mullin, Chris |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Murphy, Paul |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Nellist, Dave |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Gordon, Mildred | O'Brien, William |
| Gould, Bryan | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Graham, Thomas | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Parry, Robert |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Patchett, Terry |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Pendry, Tom |
| Grocott, Bruce | Pike, Peter L. |
| Hardy, Peter | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Prescott, John |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Henderson, Doug | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Hinchliffe, David | Radice, Giles |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Randall, Stuart |
| Holland, Stuart | Redmond, Martin |
| Home Robertson, John | Reid, Dr John |
| Hood, Jimmy | Richardson, Jo |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Robertson, George |
| Howells, Geraint | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Hoyle, Doug | Rogers, Allan |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Rooker, Jeff |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Ruddock, Joan |
| Illsley, Eric | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Ingram, Adam | Sheerman, Barry |
| Janner, Greville | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| John, Brynmor | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Short, Clare |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Sillars, Jim |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Kennedy, Charles | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Soley, Clive |
| Lamond, James | Spearing, Nigel |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Lewis, Terry | Stott, Roger |
| Litherland, Robert | Strang, Gavin |
| Livsey, Richard | Straw, Jack |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis |
| McAllion, John | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Turner, Dennis |
| McCrea, Rev William | Vaz, Keith |
| McFall, John | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Wall, Pat |
| McKelvey, William | Wallace, James |
| McLeish, Henry | Walley, Joan |
| Maclennan, Robert | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) | Wray, Jimmy |
| Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Williams, Rt Hon Alan | |
| Wilson, Brian | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Winnick, David | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Wise, Mrs Audrey | Mr. Ken Eastham. |
| Worthington, Tony | |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Curry, David |
| Alexander, Richard | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Allason, Rupert | Day, Stephen |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Devlin, Tim |
| Amess, David | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Amos, Alan | Dicks, Terry |
| Arbuthnot, James | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Dover, Den |
| Ashby, David | Dunn, Bob |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Durant, Tony |
| Atkins, Robert | Dykes, Hugh |
| Atkinson, David | Eggar, Tim |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Baldry, Tony | Evennett, David |
| Batiste, Spencer | Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Fallon, Michael |
| Bellingham, Henry | Favell, Tony |
| Bendall, Vivian | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Benyon, W. | Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Body, Sir Richard | Forman, Nigel |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Forth, Eric |
| Boswell, Tim | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Bottomley, Peter | Franks, Cecil |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Freeman, Roger |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | French, Douglas |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Fry, Peter |
| Bowis, John | Gale, Roger |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Gardiner, George |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Gill, Christopher |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Brazier, Julian | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Bright, Graham | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Gorst, John |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Gow, Ian |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Burns, Simon | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Burt, Alistair | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Butcher, John | Gregory, Conal |
| Butler, Chris | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Grist, Ian |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Ground, Patrick |
| Carrington, Matthew | Grylls, Michael |
| Carttiss, Michael | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Cash, William | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Chope, Christopher | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Churchill, Mr | Hannam, John |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Harris, David |
| Colvin, Michael | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Hayes, Jerry |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Hayward, Robert |
| Cormack, Patrick | Heath, Rt Hon Edward |
| Couchman, James | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Cran, James | Heddle, John |
| Critchley, Julian | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Maclean, David |
| Hill, James | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Hind, Kenneth | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Holt, Richard | Madel, David |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Howard, Michael | Malins, Humfrey |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Mans, Keith |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Maples, John |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Marland, Paul |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Marlow, Tony |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Mates, Michael |
| Hunter, Andrew | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Irvine, Michael | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Irving, Charles | Mellor, David |
| Jack, Michael | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Jackson, Robert | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Janman, Tim | Mills, Iain |
| Jessel, Toby | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Moate, Roger |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Key, Robert | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Kilfedder, James | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) |
| King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Knapman, Roger | Mudd, David |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Neale, Gerrard |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Knowles, Michael | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Knox, David | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Latham, Michael | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Page, Richard |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Paice, James |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Patnick, Irvine |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Patten, Chris (Bath) |
| Lightbown, David | Patten, John (Oxford W) |
| Lilley, Peter | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Pawsey, James |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Lord, Michael | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Lyell, Sir Nicholas | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Portillo, Michael |
| Macfarlane, Sir Neil | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Price, Sir David | Summerson, Hugo |
| Raffan, Keith | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Rathbone, Tim | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Redwood, John | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Renton, Tim | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Riddick, Graham | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Thorne, Neil |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Rost, Peter | Tracey, Richard |
| Rowe, Andrew | Tredinnick, David |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Trotter, Neville |
| Ryder, Richard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | Viggers, Peter |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Scott, Nicholas | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Walden, George |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Waller, Gary |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Walters, Sir Dennis |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Ward, John |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Shersby, Michael | Warren, Kenneth |
| Sims, Roger | Watts, John |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Wells, Bowen |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | Wheeler, John |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Whitney, Ray |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Speed, Keith | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Speller, Tony | Wilkinson, John |
| Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) | Wilshire, David |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Squire, Robin | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Wolfson, Mark |
| Stanley, Rt Hon John | Wood, Timothy |
| Steen, Anthony | Woodcock, Mike |
| Stern, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
| Stevens, Lewis | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) | |
| Stokes, Sir John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and |
| Sumberg, David | Mr. Michael Neubert. |
| Division No. 2] | [11.44 pm |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) |
| Alexander, Richard | Ashby, David |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Aspinwall, Jack |
| Allason, Rupert | Atkins, Robert |
| Amess, David | Atkinson, David |
| Amos, Alan | Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Baldry, Tony |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Batiste, Spencer |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Bellingham, Henry | Hayes, Jerry |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Benyon, W. | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hill, James |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Hind, Kenneth |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Boswell, Tim | Holt, Richard |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Howard, Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Bowis, John | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Brazier, Julian | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Bright, Graham | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Irvine, Michael |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Jack, Michael |
| Burt, Alistair | Jackson, Robert |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Janman, Tim |
| Carrington, Matthew | Jessel, Toby |
| Carttiss, Michael | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Cash, William | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Chope, Christopher | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Key, Robert |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Couchman, James | Knapman, Roger |
| Cran, James | Latham, Michael |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Curry, David | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lightbown, David |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Maclean, David |
| Day, Stephen | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Devlin, Tim | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Dorrell, Stephen | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Dover, Den | Mills, Iain |
| Dunn, Bob | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Durant, Tony | Moate, Roger |
| Dykes, Hugh | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Eggar, Tim | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Evennett, David | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Favell, Tony | Neale, Gerrard |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Neubert, Michael |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Forth, Eric | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Franks, Cecil | Page, Richard |
| Freeman, Roger | Paice, James |
| French, Douglas | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Gale, Roger | Pawsey, James |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Gill, Christopher | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Portillo, Michael |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Price, Sir David |
| Gorst, John | Raffan, Keith |
| Gow, Ian | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Rathbone, Tim |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Redwood, John |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Renton, Tim |
| Gregory, Conal | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Riddick, Graham |
| Grist, Ian | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Ground, Patrick | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Grylls, Michael | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Rost, Peter |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Ryder, Richard |
| Hannam, John | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Harris, David | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Tredinnick, David |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Trotter, Neville |
| Sims, Roger | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Walden, George |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Waller, Gary |
| Speed, Keith | Ward, John |
| Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Steen, Anthony | Wheeler, John |
| Stern, Michael | Whitney, Ray |
| Stevens, Lewis | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Wilkinson, John |
| Sumberg, David | Wood, Timothy |
| Summerson, Hugo | Woodcock, Mike |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | |
| Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Thornton, Malcolm | Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory |
| Thurnham, Peter | and Mr. Michael Fallon. |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Gordon, Mildred |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Graham, Thomas |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Ashton, Joe | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Hardy, Peter |
| Battle, John | Henderson, Doug |
| Beggs, Roy | Hinchliffe, David |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Home Robertson, John |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Hood, Jimmy |
| Bradley, Keith | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Howells, Geraint |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Illsley, Eric |
| Buchan, Norman | Ingram, Adam |
| Buckley, George J. | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Caborn, Richard | Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Lamond, James |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Lewis, Terry |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Litherland, Robert |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Livsey, Richard |
| Clay, Bob | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Clelland, David | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Cohen, Harry | McAllion, John |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | McFall, John |
| Cousins, Jim | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Cryer, Bob | McKelvey, William |
| Cummings, John | McLeish, Henry |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | McWilliam, John |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Dalyell, Tam | Marek, Dr John |
| Darling, Alistair | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Dewar, Donald | Martlew, Eric |
| Dixon, Don | Maxton, John |
| Doran, Frank | Meale, Alan |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Michael, Alun |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Eadie, Alexander | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Morley, Elliott |
| Fatchett, Derek | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Flynn, Paul | Mullin, Chris |
| Foster, Derek | Murphy, Paul |
| Foulkes, George | Nellist, Dave |
| Fyfe, Maria | O'Brien, William |
| Galbraith, Sam | O'Neill, Martin |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Parry, Robert |
| Patchett, Terry | Stott, Roger |
| Pike, Peter L. | Strang, Gavin |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Prescott, John | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Turner, Dennis |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Redmond, Martin | Wall, Pat |
| Reid, Dr John | Wallace, James |
| Robertson, George | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Rogers, Allan | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Ross, William (Londonderry E) | Wilson, Brian |
| Rowlands, Ted | Winnick, David |
| Ruddock, Joan | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Sheerman, Barry | Wray, Jimmy |
| Short, Clare | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Skinner, Dennis | |
| Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Mr. Ken Eastham. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7325/88 on transport infrastructure and 6047/88 on aids for transport; and endorses the Government's opposition both to the creation of a transport infrastructure spending instrument and to the extension of Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 to cover the granting of aids for certain transport operating costs.