HC Deb 04 July 1989 vol 156 cc269-78

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 42, leave out lines 16 to 46 and insert▀× '"relevant undertaker" means—

  1. (a) any person or authority authorised by or under any Act (whether public general or local) to carry on any railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking;
  2. (b) any person to whom the telecommunications code is applied by a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 authorising him to run a telecommunications system;
  3. (c) any public gas supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986);
  4. (d) any holder of a licence under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 who is entitled to exercise any power conferred by paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;
  5. (e) the National Rivers Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;
  6. (f) any other licensed operator of a driver information system; or
  7. (g) any person to whom this Schedule is applied by any Act passed after this Act;
undertaker's works" means
  1. (a) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (a) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying on by him of the undertaking mentioned in that paragraph;
  2. (b) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (b) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a telecommunications system run by him;
  3. (c) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (c) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, his supplying gas as a public gas supplier;
  4. (d) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (d) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for any purpose connected with the carrying on of the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on;
  5. (e) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (e) above, any works which that Authority or undertaker has power to execute for purposes connected with the carrying on of its functions;
  6. (f) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (f) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a driver information system operated by him; and;
  7. (g) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (g) above, the works for the purposes of which this Schedule is applied to him.".'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Order for Third Reading read.Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

11.17 pm
Mr. Corbyn

We have had a short Committee stage and a fairly lengthy Report stage. Unfortunately, the two stages have been taken separately because of the antics of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I am not quite sure whether he was trying to let his Back Benchers get home early or he could not keep them here.

Nothing that the Minister has said has altered the basic objection that many of us have to the Bill. It is called a road safety improvement measure, but it does not extend the eyesight testing requirement that many of us believe is necessary. The principal part of it concerns the provision of an autoguide system. The Minister said that Autoguide will not co-operate with local authorities because it does not have to, that local authorities will have no power to stop Autoguide coming in, but that when someone objects to, or supports, a traffic management scheme, Autoguide will be one of the participants in the consultation process. That is the kernel of the problem.

If we want to introduce a traffic management scheme, the people who are normally most affected are local residents, residents of adjoining streets which may be affected by increased or decreased traffic, local highway authorities and the emergency services. It is not normal to take account of objections from a company whose sole interest is to get people more quickly through that community. The Bill is giving a private company a franchise on our roads, which means giving it an unaccountable power for an undesirable end. I hope that the House will recognise that and oppose the Third Reading.

The legislation is of no benefit to those of us who are concerned about traffic movements and safety in inner urban areas. It is of no benefit in improving road safety as a whole. The energies that have gone into drafting the Bill could have been much better spent developing and improving public transport systems and keeping cars out of urban areas. The Minister says that he wants to do that, yet he gives powers to other people to encourage drivers to come into those areas. We would have been better off spending our time making our transport and traffic systems safer and more usable by the majority of the population rather than spending the time on an expensive autoguide system for the minority who can afford it, driving around in expensive cars, rat-running down small urban streets and country lanes.

Many Conservative Members may vote for the Bill. In a few months, when the systems are introduced, or in a few years, when they have been extended to the whole country, the Minister will get representations from many people who want the schemes removed from their area because of the complaints of local residents.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The speech by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a ludicrous, open distortion which will do him no good. Autoguide's aim is to reduce congestion, mainly by ensuring that people do not get lost and go several times around the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency or that of any other London Member during the pilot scheme. It means that they will find an efficient way of going where they want to go without going off the right track. Most of the tracks will be on the main roads. We are also making 1989 the Year of the Sign and ensuring that signs follow on from each other rather than act like the hon. Gentleman's speech—starting at the beginning, going halfway, getting lost and then picking up in some other direction.

We heard earlier that the scheme would be for the benefit of the friends of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and then we heard that it would be for the benefit of the friends of the hon. Member for Islington, North who have big posh cars. We know, because it was established in Committee, that the local authorities will maintain their traffic management powers, which are not affected by the Bill. We heard the interesting idea that those who are trying to serve the interests of road users —especially the commercial organisations, including those providing services to constituents in Islington, North, often in vehicles driven by those constituents—should be forbidden to offer a comment on local authority traffic management orders, but those people may know more about traffic management than the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Corbyn

Why does not the Minister answer the debate?

Mr. Bottomley

I thought that I had been answering the hon. Gentleman's speech, paying a courtesy to him that he seldom pays to others. The hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is talking about. He does not have the slightest conception of how to make traffic better for local residents. I suggest that he starts reading some of the traffic advisory unit notices that the Department issues. If he will not do that, he might look at some of the joint work of local authority associations. They understand what we are trying to do, and in general support us.

Mr. Corbyn

I was chairman of a planning committee.

Mr. Bottomley

When the hon. Gentleman was chairman, he should have spent more time listening than speaking.

Sensible contributions have been made in the debate, most of them by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who raised serious points, to which we have given serious answers. I commend the Bill to the House. It will improve safety, make driver licensing more efficient and pave the way for new driver information systems which will reduce traffic congestion. It will be a valuable improvement to road traffic law.

11.23 pm
Ms. Ruddock

There have been some interesting discussions on the Bill and the Opposition have pressed a number of amendments that would substantially improve it. I am sorry that the Minister has not been receptive to them. Indeed, he has been intransigent on a number of key points, and I know that many people inside and outside the House will be disappointed by his unwillingness to accommodate their concerns. Despite what the Minister said. I stress that those concerns included those put to me by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. As I said on Second Reading, in general we have not objected to the Bill. The proposals in part I, to unify the driver licensing system, are acceptable to us.

In Committee we spent much time discussing clause 6 of part I, which deals with new requirements for motor cyclists. Opposition Members welcome the requirement that motor cyclists take a training course before they are able to drive on the road, and all parts of the motor cycling world were in support of that. However, we were concerned about the applicability of the clause and possible impracticalities. In Committee, we sought several improvements to allow motor cyclists to ride their bikes to and from their courses. They would also have ensured an adequate number of properly qualified and trained instructors and would have set up a register of training centres. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) tabled amendments in an attempt to deal with the problem of access to such courses, but, unfortunately, those amendments were not selected for debate tonight.

Access problems may make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to attend the proposed training courses. Opposition Members supported the amendments, and I regret that the Minister has felt unable to do so. I hope that, when the Bill becomes law, the Minister will respond positively if the fears that have been articulated by industry and consumer lobbies are substantiated.

In Committee, as indeed tonight, Opposition Members reserved most criticism for part II of the Bill, which deals with parliamentary approval for autoguide. I have already explained the reasons we continue to press the Government either for statutory local authority, participation or broader terms of reference for the Secretary of State. Once again, I regret to say that the Minister has declined to listen. I regret also that he is unwilling to give local highway authorities their proper role in monitoring and controlling the use of that device. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, local authority associations are involved in the autoguide assessment group, and I welcome that. However, the House will recognise the difference between participation in an ad hoc advisory group and a statutory power if autoguide is detrimental to local authority areas.

I have seen autoguide in operation. I am convinced that it is undoubtedly a technical advance and that it will obviously be useful to individual drivers. However, Opposition Members do not believe that it is truly going to ease traffic congestion in London. As I said on Second Reading, it can clearly be useful as a route finder, but the consequence in London is that any motorist would be more inclined to use his car than public transport. That would be its effect on me. Concern that I might not be able to reach my destination conveniently and efficiently is more likely to make me leave my car at home and use public transport in the city. As a consequence of people taking such decisions, any spare road capacity that is found by autoguide will immediately be filled by more cars. As is already clear, there will be more pressure from autoguide operators to include minor roads in the system. After all our discussions, the Minister has failed to convince us that autoguide will do one jot of good in solving congestion in London.

Since Second Reading, we have had the pleasure of reading the Government's thoughts on road policy into the next century. We have learned also that road traffic is up by 6 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and that traffic speeds in the London peak hour are now 11.8 miles an hour, down yet again on the previous survey. A picture emerges, which we all know well, of more cars on the road moving more slowly, costing industry more money and causing more pedestrian accidents. The Government's response in the White Paper is to forecast a traffic explosion of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. Hon. Members may like to know the reality of those cold statistics. An increase of 142 per cent. would mean an extra 32.7 million vehicles in addition to the 23 million-odd already on our roads.

This legislation clearly should not have been the priority for dealing with traffic problems in Britain. The Minister will need more than autoguide and new driver licensing to help him deal with those problems if his own Department's own forecasts become a reality. Therefore, Opposition Members give the Bill a limited welcome.

Naturally, we regret that the Government have not accepted our assistance in improving it. In particular, once again, the Minister has spurned real partnership with the local authorities.

11.30 pm
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I share with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) severe reservations about the operational effectiveness of clause 6, and I am sorry that we could not debate the provision tonight.

The Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain, the Auto-cycle Union—of which I am president, and which runs motor-cycle sport in this country—and the industry are very concerned about how the clause will operate in practice. The Minister will establish and improve centres to which learner motor cyclists go to receive training. In principle, we welcome that. Much will depend on where the centres are, however. In rural areas, motor cyclists may have to travel 50 miles to a centre—in Scotland, perhaps even 100 miles. How will they get there, and, if they happen to require additional training and do not qualify for a certificate the first time, how will they get home? Will they have to leave their motor bikes at some remote aerodrome and, try to get a bus home—if there is one?

The Minister does not seem to have addressed such practical problems in clause 6, and I hope that he will announce that he proposes to draft regulations that can be efficiently and effectively adhered to by learner motor cyclists. After all, we want to encourage motor cycling; it is a healthy sport and a healthy way of getting to work or travelling about in the normal course of one's life. We should not put difficulties in the way of people obtaining motor cycle riders' licences once they have received proper training. Yet clause 6—perhaps with the best of intentions —sets out to make matters as difficult as possible for the learner.

The industry assures me that even if we had 1,000 centres, there would be only one centre every 80 square miles. I suspect that there will be fewer centres than that and that the distances will be much greater. Some years ago, when we started to close the driver vehicle and licensing centres dotted round the country, I pointed out that there would be a great deal of difficulty if the centres became too remote. I suspect that exactly the same problem will arise with the training centres for motor cyclists.

Before we give the Bill its Third Reading, we want assurances from the Minister that he will be supportive and sympathetic to the training of motor cyclists. Under clause 6 as drafted, that will be impossible. I want to hear that there will be regulations to allow motorcyclists to ride to and from centres before they have received their proper licences. If that does not happen, the training exercise will fall flat on its face and we shall fail in our objective.

11.33 pm
Mr. Cryer

I am disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to allow the statutory involvement of the local authorities in the autoguide system set out in part II of the Bill.

These provisions will remain in force until further legislation is produced for our approval, and it would have been useful to allow the local authorities to be involved from the start. That could perhaps have been done by regulation at the discretion of the Minister; at least that would have been a good basis on which to build for the future.

The Minister said that he wanted to make traffic better for local residents, and that he thought that autoguide would help to achieve that aim. Local authorities are involved in making traffic better for local residents. Traffic is one of the cornerstones of local councillors' involvement and the representations that are made to them, and local councillors of any political party ignore representations about traffic hazards at their peril. I have made representations about Manchester road in my constituency, because old people cannot cross that busy trunk road. Even that local authority—a Tory-controlled local authority—says that it simply does not have the money at the moment for a scheme that it wants to institute because it has a high priority as a traffic improvement measure. That local authority is of roughtly the same political complexion as the Minister. Bradford council is, of course, rather Right-wing, whereas the Minister considers himself to be a softy in the centre—

Mr. Peter Bottomley

No—Right-wing.

Mr. Cryer

The Minister corrects me. He is Right-wing under the so-called "liberal" image. However, although the council and the Minister are Right-wing extremists, even Bradford council is complaining that it is not getting money from a Right-wing extremist Minister to carry out road improvements. If the Minister's aim is to make traffic better for local residents, surely his priority should be not to spend Civil Service time in producing a scheme which inevitably, although private money is involved in financing it, will cost the taxpayer money in its drawing up and administration, in conjunction with the private consortia. His job should have been to get more money out of the Treasury to give to local authorities.

The Minister obviously holds local authorities in some disregard. If he held them in proper regard, he would obtain money for them for improving traffic schemes, such as the scheme I have mentioned, which would enable local people living near the road to cross in greater safety. Many of them are elderly people who are hesitant to use an underpass about half a mile away, particularly at night. They are apprehensive about using poorly lit corridors at night because of the threats they seem to hold.

The Minister's first priority should be to get money from the Treasury for local authrities. His second should be to give local authorities some means of being involved in the application of these schemes. Failure to do so will lead to a build-up of resentment not only among ordinary citizens who are concerned about the encroachment of traffic, but among Conservative councillors, who feel that they should be better consulted and better involved, rather than having simply a nominal involvement in a supervisory committee which has no statutory basis.

As the Minister knows, Ministers come and go. With a reshuffle in the offing, it is conceivable that some Ministers at the Department of Transport will go. A Minister who gives an assurance here that he understands the position of local authorities and will ensure that their non-statutory involvement is retained does not guarantee the position for other Ministers. The position can be eroded overnight "at a stroke," to use a phrase from the past of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who used to wield such influence in the Tory party. Whatever platitude one wants to use, there is nothing to beat putting provisions in a Bill so that they become law. Local authorities know where they stand, citizens can have recourse and Ministers cannot renege on a previous Minister's commitment. That is the important point, so I am sorry that the Minister was not prepared to be more accommodating to the sensible propositions put forward tonight.

11.38 pm
Mr. Cohen

The Bill is called the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill. It is no coincidence that as well as including provisions for driver information systems in the Bill, the Government also brought out "Primary Route Signing in London—Proposals for Change", a nice, glossy leaflet which talked about the £35 million lost because signs are not provided properly for motorists around London. Yet when I raised with the Minister whether the signing would take into account being able to enforce a heavy lorry ban, which the Metropolitan police say that they cannot enforce because of inadequate signs in London, he said that that was not the purpose of the glossy leaflet. He said that although taxpayers' cash would be used to improve signposting, there would be no heavy lorry ban in London. That idea should have been incorporated not only in the proposal to improve road signs, but in the road traffic driver information system because heavy lorries should not go down residential streets at unsociable hours. I hope that the Minister will return to that point at some stage.

The Bill is also supposed to be about road safety and the Minister has referred to it as a Bill to help avoid accidents. Getting rid of accidents is a key part of the Minister's case for the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, the Minister has refused to include in the Bill provisions on eyesight and medical fitness tests for drivers. The House will have to return to that point at some stage. We must have eyesight testing. It should be free and should certainly not discriminate on the basis of the wealth or income of the motorist.

I refer again to coaches in connection with this point about accidents. If coaches were on the autoguide system, there might be more accidents involving coaches in residential roads. I remind the House of the terrible accident last week in which a couple of people were killed. Hon. Members will have seen the amazing photographs of the car that was crushed down to 3 ft. The person inside it survived while people on the coach died through being flung about.

I had hoped that the Minister would bring forward on Report proposals for seat belts for all passengers in all coaches. I know that the Minister cannot insert such provisions in the Bill now, but I hope that he will come back to this point because it is serious—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now on Third Reading and that he must discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cohen

Yes, I appreciate that. On this point, the Bill refers to rat running or the potential for rat running on the part of the Autoguide company. As my hon. Friends have said, that is why it is vital that the local authorities should have been and should continue to be consulted fully before such systems are installed in their areas.

I broadly welcome the autoguide system for route guidance. We should take advantage of what new technology can provide for drivers. However, the serious snags should be sorted out at the outset. Local authorities must have a role in deciding the routes. It is all very well for the Minister to say that local authorities can still make their traffic management schemes, but Autoguide Limited might take local authorities to court if they tried to impose restrictions on it. Such companies could argue a case of restraint of trade if they could not use whatever roads they like.

We know that in privatisations Conservative Members always stress that restrictions should be removed from private companies so that they can do what they like. They say that that will be of benefit. However, such freedom from restrictions will not benefit the local residents of the areas where the rat running is taking place. Local authorities should have been involved because Autoguide Limited will be responsive to its customers, the motorists, but not to the residents, who are the key group that the local authorities are there to protect.

I shall not repeat all that has been said about civil liberties except to say that the autoguide system contains the potential for abuse in tracing motorists' movements, thus invading the privacy of innocent motorists.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the appalling congestion in central London—and, for example, in Islington and in Leyton High road, all around the Green Man roundabout —is an indictment of the Government's policies. That congestion has occurred without a rail dispute, so it is no use blaming it on that. It was there today and it will be there the day after the rail dispute. Autoguide will do nothing to alleviate the position; indeed, it will encourage more car use. Although I welcome the new technology, I think that we should have been sorting out the snags at this stage. However, we will have to come back and deal with them.

11.45 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley

With the leave of the House I shall reply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned motor cycling. Compulsory training will be introduced only when there is adequate nationwide coverage of training centres. The Bill provides for regulations giving exemptions from compulsory training to persons in prescribed circumstances and areas.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a trade-off bringing in a system relatively early, which would be in the interests of safer motor cycling, and having sufficiently broad regulations to allow certain exemptions? Unless there are reasonable exemptions, it might not be possible to introduce a scheme as early as one would wish.

Mr. Bottomley

That is correct. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening at this stage, because I know that, if provoked, he could equal the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in exploring the issues at great length. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for their motor cycling interests.

The power is already in the Bill to provide exemptions from compulsory training—for example, for those residents of some Scottish islands and of the Scilly Isles where there are no training facilities. We shall be looking for a balance between trying to get the benefits of initial training for as many people as possible as soon as possible, while trying to remember the practical disadvantages for those for whom it is difficult to have proper provision. Those are points on which the Government will wish to keep an open mind.

In Bradford, while it was under the control of both political parties, central Government have given very substantial help to improve the road network, for which I believe the people of Bradford are grateful. A through road allows traffic calming in many other areas. That in essence overrides what autoguide will be doing. I remind the House that the autoguide provisions bring in a system of licensing and do not abolish one. On those grounds, I believe that it will be greatly welcomed.

Although it is not within the Bill, I want to say a word about the terrible coach crash on the A286 just north of Midhurst. I visited the scene and I think that it would be wrong for any of us to prejudge the cause. However, I want to repeat the advice that I gave at the scene, which is that anyone sitting on the exposed seat of the coach would be well advised to use another seat or, if one is fitted, to use a seat belt. The House has made it a requirement that all new coaches should have seat belts on those front seats. It is also worth noting that, had that coach been built 15 or 20 years ago, it would have collapsed in the crash—it did not.

On general road safety points, I would say that if some hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, go on wanting things that do not work, and opposing the things that do work, we will not see the continued reduction in road casualties of which the country can be proud.

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

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 11.

Division No. 279] [11.48 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard Burt, Alistair
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Butler, Chris
Allason, Rupert Butterfill, John
Amess, David Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Amos, Alan Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Arbuthnot, James Carrington, Matthew
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Carttiss, Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Cash, William
Ashby, David Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Chapman, Sydney
Batiste, Spencer Chope, Christopher
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Benyon, W. Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Bevan, David Gilroy Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Blackburn, Dr John G. Cran, James
Boswell, Tim Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bottomley, Peter Curry, David
Bowls, John Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brazier, Julian Day, Stephen
Bright, Graham Devlin, Tim
Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Burns, Simon Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Durant, Tony Norris, Steve
Fallon, Michael Oppenheim, Phillip
Favell, Tony Page, Richard
Fishburn, John Dudley Paice, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Forth, Eric Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Freeman, Roger Porter, David (Waveney)
French, Douglas Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Garel-Jones, Tristan Redwood, John
Gill, Christopher Riddick, Graham
Gow, Ian Roe, Mrs Marion
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Rowe, Andrew
Gregory, Conal Ryder, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Sackville, Hon Tom
Ground, Patrick Sayeed, Jonathan
Hague, William Shaw, David (Dover)
Hamilton, Neil (Talton) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Hampson, Dr Keith Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hawkins, Christopher Shersby, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hind, Kenneth Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Stern, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Stevens, Lewis
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Knapman, Roger Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Sumberg, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) Summerson, Hugo
Knowles, Michael Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Latham, Michael Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Lawrence, Ivan Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Thurnham, Peter
Lightbown, David Tredinnick, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Twinn, Dr Ian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Waddington, Rt Hon David
Maclean, David Waller, Gary
McLoughlin, Patrick Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Malins, Humfrey Warren, Kenneth
Mans, Keith Watts, John
Maples, John Wells, Bowen
Marland, Paul Wheeler, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Widdecombe, Ann
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Wilkinson, John
Miller, Sir Hal Wilshire, David
Mills, Iain Wolfson, Mark
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Wood, Timothy
Moate, Roger Yeo, Tim
Monro, Sir Hector
Moynihan, Hon Colin Tellers for the Ayes:
Neale, Gerrard Mr. Stephen Dorrell and
Neubert, Michael Mr. John M. Taylor.
Nicholls, Patrick
NOES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Pike, Peter L.
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Skinner, Dennis
Clay, Bob Vaz, Keith
Cohen, Harry
Dunnachie, Jimmy Tellers for the Noes:
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Mr. Bob Cryer and
Meale, Alan Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Forward to