§ Lords amendment: In page 3, line 10, leave out '85' and insert '85E'.
§ Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June], That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Question again proposed.
§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
The House will recall that I moved the amendment on 25 June. The purpose of clause 3 is to apply to the work sought to be constructed the provisions of two clauses Acts that were enacted in the 19th century. Those Acts contain model clauses that could be incorporated into private Bills, thereby avoiding the need to set out such provisions in full in individual private Acts.
One of the motives for that was to reduce the length of private Acts with consequent savings in time and money, 1069 not only for the promoters of private Bills but for Parliament, which no longer had to take time to study identical clauses time after time.
I listened carefully to the points of order. For many years it has been the practice of Associated British Ports to incorporate inter alia sections 77 to 85E of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Section 77 provides that when buying land for the carrying out of works, promoters such as Associated British Ports are not entitled to the minerals except those that it is necessary to remove for the construction of the works. The company may not work minerals unless they are expressly purchased in addition to the land.
Hon. Members have spoken about sections 78 to 85E, which is headed "Minerals under railways". Those sections contain a code under which ABP would be entitled to prevent the owners of any minerals lying under or near the works from endangering the stability of the works by extracting any such minerals. Should Associated British Ports exercise that right, the code provides for it to compensate mine and royalty owners who are affected. That code was inserted in the 1845 Act by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred in his point of order. That replaced a more restrictive code set out in sections 78 to 85 of the 1845 Act as originally enacted. It would still be possible to incorporate the previous code but ABP has never done so.
§ Mr. Brown
My next sentence may help my hon. Friend.
When the Bill was drafted, the letter E was not included, but it is the view of the House of Lords, which the promoters are prepared to accept, that it should be added, otherwise the latter part of the code in sections 85A to 85E inclusive would be omitted and those sections, which allow for variation of the code by agreement and which contain various drafting and procedural provisions, are necessary to facilitate implementation of the code. They also confer valuable protection on mine owners, in particular a release from all common law obligations for support for the land on which the works stand.
§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
Unless I have defective hearing, I have not heard my hon. Friend utter the word railway. He has studiously avoided using the word, although everything that he has said has referred to railways. Will he explain to the House how on earth by any stretch of the imagination the port can be described as a railway, which is what is dealt with in the clause?
§ Mr. Brown
If what my hon. Friend says is the case, every Act of Parliament that has been enacted with the provision that we are seeking to write into the Bill by way of the Lords amendment is similarly defective. I can reassure my hon. Friend. The promoters of the Bill and their parliamentary agents advise me that section 15 of the 1923 Act referred to railway companies because it was amending a railway code. I do not think that my hon. Friend's observation has anything to do with the Lords amendment.
There is little doubt on the matter among those who have advised Mr. Speaker—and there have been references 1070 to Speaker's Counsel. I have a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred. The hon. Gentleman did not cite the following sentence:I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those affecting 78 to 85 together, would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intentions.
§ 8 pm
§ Mr. Benn
The hon. Gentleman cited legislation and codes that were originally drawn up for railway matters, which was common in the 19th century when railways were being built. He then moved on to the question of mineral rights. The railway legislation was passed before the rights to the ownership of coal were nationalised by the Conservative Government during the war. Long before the pits were nationalised, the coal royalties were taken over by the Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to agree to a broader interpretation than even the promoters wanted, by adding 85E in such a way as to give Associated British Ports the right compulsorily to take over the mineral rights to any coal that is discovered under its workings.
Those coal royalties belong to the Government of the day, so that raises, once again, the question whether it is a hybrid Bill—but I shall not pursue that now. On what basis does the hon. Gentleman justify the Lords proposal? Since the legislation that he cited came into force, the control of the rights to coal found under the earth passed to the Government of the day, and that has been the positon for more than 50 years.
§ Mr. Brown
I do not think that much of what the right hon. Gentleman said is relevant. I am introducing the amendments because the other place requested that they be made. When the Bill first came before the House, it was not felt that the amendments were necessary. However, I have a duty to lay the Lords amendments before the House. It is for the House to accept or reject them. The House is free to reject them for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman.
As the Lords Chairman and his colleagues have requested that the promoters insert the amendments in the Bill, I and the promoters felt that it was only right to place them before the House. However, the House is free not to accept them—
§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I earlier raised a point of order about the promoters not providing information, and you rightly said that it was a matter for the promoters because our Standing Orders are defective in that respect. Serious points have been raised, and it is outside the conventions of the House for the hon. Member who represents the promoters not even to give an explanation of why the promoters have so lamentably failed to make information readily available.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
If we allow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to continue, the hopes nourished by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may well be satisfied.
§ Mr. Brown
Other minor and technical amendments need to be made, again at the request of the other place.
1071 They equity relate to clause 18. Since the Bill was deposited in November 1987, the general law has been changed by a new general development order, the order of 1987 having been replaced by that of 1988. It will be appreciated that references to a piece of general legislation that has now been revoked would be incorrect when replacement legislation is in force.
The amendments are beneficial to the opponents of the Bill. They constitute a minor piece of technical drafting relating to clause 18. I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. Ashton
I remind the House that this is a transport Bill as well as a coal Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to the transport aspect because, over many months, my hon. Friends have dealt in great detail with the important coal aspects. They have done a magnificent job in pointing out the effects on the economy in areas such as my constituency.
Bassetlaw has three power stations—Cottam, West Burton and High Marnham. There should have been a fourth—West Burton B. It has four pits—Manton, Harworth, Welbeck and Bevercotes. The Bill will have a devastating effect on my constituency. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has never told the House what will happen to the coal after it is unloaded at the port. He has never explained how thousands of tonnes of coal per day will get to the power stations in my constituency.
Those power stations were first planned in 1947 after a very bad winter, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are probably old enough to remember. Manny Shinwell was the fuel Minister at the time, and he was followed by Harold Wilson. A proper plan was laid down, with a railway line rather like a roundabout running through a string of 20 different pits, 24 hours a day, 360 days of the year. The coal was fed into different wagons from a hopper and it was then trundled along through the surrounding fields. One reason why the power stations were sited in my constituency was the River Trent and the surrounding flat countryside.
That was a first-class example of planning by a Labour Government—something that the nation has not enjoyed since. It was highly efficient and effective, despite what was said at the time about the much-maligned nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman wants to put in its place an unplanned, private enterprise scheme that is designed to suck in cheap coal from South Africa, Bolivia, China, Colombia or Poland, simply to make a massive profit without worrying about the environment or the consequences on our constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman has not told his constituents what will happen when 20,000 tonnes of coal a day must be offloaded at Immingham, so I shall tell them. The hon. Gentleman has not thought out that problem. It means 500 lorries a day, each weighing about 38 tonnes, carrying the 20,000 tonnes of coal needed to run just the power stations in my constituency. Some 500 lorries will have to leave Immingham right around the clock. People living on that lorry route will find that the value of their houses will fall by half, and they should blame the hon. Gentleman for that when they vote at the next general election.
§ Mr. Michael Brown
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been to Immingham recently. The docks 1072 are connected to the A180, which is a massive dual carriageway provided by the Department of Transport. I do not think that there are any houses near it. The lorries will go straight from the docks on to the A180, a road that I opened in 1983.
§ Mr. Ashton
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it gives me the opportunity to tell him that lorry drivers please themselves. I have experienced that with the A1 in my constituency. A bypass was built to protect the very pretty village of Blyth, which used to win the competition for the best kept village in Nottinghamshire. What happened? One thousand three hundred lorries a day still go through that village every time that the traffic piles up. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is not listening, but I wish that he would. He will find that the 500 lorries travelling to and from the port will also pile up as a result of an accident or some other form of blockage on the motorway.
When that happens, the drivers will take a short cut. They are all on bonuses and have to complete two or three trips a day. They will take short cuts through villages, calling in at the local pub for their sandwiches or for a packet of fags. They will park at night two miles outside the docks because they have arrived too early and their load is not ready to be collected until 7 o'clock in the morning. Drivers will say, "We'll nip into Immingham, have a pint, park the lorry in the street, and sleep in the back." Then they will start their lorries up at four in the morning under Mrs. Brown's window so that they can be at the front of the queue at the docks.
Any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a coal mining constituency can tell the hon. Gentleman about the complaints that are received from people living near the coal mines. After moving into a modern house, they discover that the klaxon horns sound at 1 o'clock in the morning and that they can hear the Tannoys. They can also hear the warning horns fitted to lorries that sound whenever they reverse, which is done for safety reasons. Our constituents lose sleep all the time, and they protested when it was suggested that pits would go on to seven-day working. They are continually having their environment destroyed. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes imagines that there will be a merry-go-round of lorries coming down the motorway and going straight to the power stations, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I hope that his constituents will ask him serious, probing questions about the Bill's effects on Immingham.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman more about the areas on my patch. I mentioned Blyth, and Cuckney is another. Such villages have no pavements or street lamps. One woman pushing a pram had to dive into a hedge when a lorry came thundering round the corner.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the noise under Mrs. Brown's window and the sound made by reversing trucks, but I fail to relate them to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful Second Reading speech, but perhaps we may have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how far one is allowed to wander off the subject of the amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I was beginning to grow just a little anxious myself. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made the point that he was unable to speak at 1073 earlier stages of the Bill, and as a consequence I have allowed him to make a fairly long preamble. However, I am sure that he will now relate his remarks directly to the amendments.
§ Mr. Ashton
The Bill makes reference to railways, and I am making the point that no railway is attached to the proposed port. One young woman and her baby were killed in my constituency when they were crushed by a lorry against a wall. Even a horse being led down a lane was killed by a lorry. That is the kind of situation that arises when no railway is available. The Bill is a total planning shambles. It is the equivalent of saying that if all the tube stations in London were closed down and everyone could ride free on the buses, that would be fine. It would not. The city could not function. The same applies to the port.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talks about lorries coming off the A180, but it does not lead to the power stations, which are in a remote rural area near the River Trent. The road that serves them is probably no wider than the gap between the two Front Benches. Lorries have to travel through villages in my constituency such as Walkington, Beckingham and Misterton. During the miners' strike, when there were problems with the railways and freight had to go on the roads, millions of pounds worth of damage was done because the roads were not designed to carry that amount of weight.
Nottinghamshire county council ran into serious trouble. Because of the poll tax—I am not digressing, but this is an important point—that county council no longer receives rates from the power stations because the Government get that money instead. My constituents have to put up with all the environmental problems caused by lorries, acid rain, steam, coal and noise. They receive no compensation in the form of a rebate on their poll tax as they did with the rates. The Bill will impose a further monstrous 500 lorries a day, carrying 20,000 tonnes of coal, pouring through constituencies.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has thought through the Bill and its impact on the environment of his constituency. Three months before the previous election, probably to save the seat of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he may laugh now —the Government promised another power station, West Burton B. We all supported it because building and running it would have created thousands of jobs. I accepted that it would worsen the environment in my constituency, but some of my hon. Friends have suffered worse pit closures even than I have and grievous unemployment, so we were happy to accept the building of that new power station. We do not object to industrial development. I might even say that imported coal could help the building of a new power station. Even so, my constituents want to retain the existing coal mines and power stations, and not run the power stations on foreign coal.
The amendments give the promoters of the Bill the power to do virtually anything that they like. Once they have created the project for massive profit, there will be no cost to them for the wear and tear on the roads, or for the loss of value by half of houses on the route, even in Immingham. Nor will they have to meet the miners' redundancy pay or suffer through the loss of rate rebates.
1074 I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is conning his own constituents into supporting the Bill. I shall not make the allegation that the hon. Gentleman is getting paid because if he was getting paid, I am sure that he would stand up and tell the House. He has not done so, but if it is found out later that he is getting paid, that will be a contempt of the House and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the appropriate action.
I shall make one promise to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. There is no way that the port can be built before the next general election. If the promoters sitting in the Box watching us have spent money on anything except drawings, they have been very foolish. The next Labour Government will stop the project. If a Labour Government are returned at the next general election, the port will not be built. We may have to pay compensation for the drawings and planning that the promoters have already completed—but if they mix one bag of cement ready to start work on constructing the port, they are idiots. The port will not go ahead. No one is in favour of it—neither Conservative Members who know the Nottinghamshire area nor my own right hon. and hon. Friends. The project is designed only to make a massive profit for friends of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, and his constituents will decide that for themselves at the next general election.
§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
In order to understand our objections to the Bill and to the Lords amendments, I will precis the contents of clause 3. Subsection (1) states that the Act will incorporate
- "(a) sections 30 to 44 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 …
- (b) sections 77 to 85 of that Act".For the purposes of the said sections 30 to 44 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated"—and I tried to make this point clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—the works shall be deemed to be a railway and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 in so Far as it relates to the works".Clause 3 and the Lords amendments try to write into the Bill the 1845 Act as amended by the 1923 legislation—or at least that is what the Lords think they have done. That is why I raised a point of order earlier.
The clause and the amendments seek to establish what mining code will apply and whether it has been properly chosen. In doing so, ABP assumes that it is a railway company. I submit that ABP is patently not a railway company and that the works that it intends to carry out are not railway works. However, the amendments that we are asked to approve deem them to be railway works. If we accepted the amendments, we should assume that their Lordships made the right decision in adopting the 1923 code. The courts are likely to take a different view.
It is odd, therefore, that the House should be debating the Bill. I believe that the promoters are storing up trouble for themselves. If they were to be challenged in the courts, they would be faced with enormous financial costs. It would take only six months to send the Bill back to the other place to get it right. There would still be arguments about whether it was right, but at least if it left this place in six months time as an Act of Parliament it would go out 1075 clean. By their obstinacy the promoters are storing up for themselves many difficulties that they could avoid if they were willing to wait for six months.
Under the 1845 Act there are two mining codes—the original code and the one that was revised in 1923. I understand that if a private Bill incorporates sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act it is the original code that is incorporated, unless either the promoters are a railway company—in which case the 1923 Act automatically applies—or they draft the Bill in such a special way as to make it clear that they have chosen to incorporate, for good reasons or bad, the 1923 code.
Reference was made earlier to counsel's opinion. We believe that the drafting of the Bill is wrong. The Lords amendments undoubtedly seek to demonstrate the promoters' intention to incorporate the 1923 code rather than the original 1845 code, since they introduced clause 85E which is found only in the later version. When the Bill left this place it was clear that the promoters assumed that the original code would apply. The Lords amendments are, therefore, incompatible with the original intention of this House. Since they are incompatible, we believe that they make clause 3, as amended, unworkable.
Before the Bill left the Commons it incorporated sections 77 to 85 of the old Act. It provided that the works were to be deemed a railway, that there should be an area of protection and that the area of protection should be various distances in metres. Of the four different provisions, the first two are incorporated in the original code. That is simply because of the references to sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act. If ABP was really a railway company—again I say that it is not—reference to the 1923 code would be automatic and there would be no problem. However, as I submit that ABP is not a railway company, there is confusion—hence the justification of the points of order earlier.
The third provision uses the expression "area of protection". That expression is appropriate only in the context of the 1923 code. The fourth provision does not prescribe an area of protection. It prescribes various distances in metres. That brings us back to the 1845 code in which the equivalent of an area of protection was defined simply by reference to the distance from a railway—whether it be 40 yards, or a special distance, as laid down in whatever Bill was before Parliament at the time.
Whatever the promoters' objectives may be, at best, having read all the papers that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has struggled through today, as have I, save only their anxiety to get the Bill, defective or otherwise, on to the statute book, it is difficult to know quite what they are trying to achieve.
When the Bill left the Commons it was clearly unsatisfactory but, strangely enough, I am advised that, in the form that it left the Commons, it was workable because the assumption was that the original 1845 code would apply and that the reference to the 1923 Act was simply an error. If, however, the drafting intended to incorporate the new code, the provision is unworkable because the area of protection is defined by distances. That is unworkable in the context of the development of a port on the Humber.
There are good grounds, therefore, for doing the promoters a favour and rejecting the Lords amendments. Rejection would give them time to look at the matter 1076 again. Thereby we might save the port authority a lot of money. We ought to provide the House of Lords with an opportunity to proffer alternative amendments to correct the drafting of clause 3, on the basis of either the old code or the new. If the Lords amendments are accepted, the inevitable consequence will be that the Bill will be passed with clause 3 in an unsatisfactory and defective form.
The Lords amendments to clause 18 effectively read part II and schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1988 into the Bill. If that were strictly a planning matter, the road restrictions would apply. Those are the road restrictions that the hon. and very patient Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to in his speech. By choosing the route of a ports Bill, all the constraints to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred will be circumvented unless we write constraints into the Bill. Those constraints are missing. Again, that is why we have raised so many points of order.
In opposing the amendments, I say to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who may have an opportunity, with the leave of the House, to speak again, that that will not block the development at Immingham. I am given to understand that the promoters do not need the Bill in its present form. I am told that the promoters could still take the route of an order under the Harbours Act and that they might succeed in about a year. That might be cheaper than the route they have chosen to go down tonight.
The clause was out of date when it left this place many months ago. This is planning permission by means of a private Bill. Many would suggest that that, too, is out of date. The promoters' amendment seeks to correct an imperfection in the planning laws. We submit that they should have gone further by also correcting the anomaly of obtaining, through the Bill, planning permission in advance without an environmental assessment, having been undertaken. Therefore, we should defer this stage of the Bill, pending receipt of an environmental assessment, or at least we should make deemed planning permission conditional upon and subject to an environmental assessment. That is the minimum duty that we owe to everyone in the region who may be affected.
The EEC directive, referred to in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—directive 85/337—requires environmental impact assessments for trading ports unless a member state Government have adopted certain alternative exemption procedures. That is not the case with this Bill. The Bill will not mean that the project is exempted from the requirements of the assessment. That does not seem to have been taken on board by the promoters. That would be the case only where an environmental impact assessment is built into the Bill. The directive has effect in the United Kingdom and, as such, could be used by an adversely affected party to challenge in the English courts the legality of the authorisation of the project under this Bill.
Those who would immediately have cause to object would include Nottinghamshire county council, which had many problems a few years ago with coal lorries on its minor roads, the coalfield communities in Yorkshire and, dare I say it, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Immediately the Bill is given Royal Assent a whole range of people will have grounds for taking the ports authority to the courts. I am 1077 advised that the action would be for judicial review of the Act or a declaration that the consents contained in the Act were invalid, being in contravention of Community law. That is not a route I would recommend the promoters to take.
There is a risk of infringement proceedings under article 169 of the EEC treaty which requires a member state to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that before consent is given projects likely to have significant effect on the environment by virtue, among other things, of their nature, size and location are made subject to assessment with regard to their effects. The risk is obvious.
With those comments on the clauses and the amendments to them, I believe that there are good grounds for rejecting them all.
§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is aware of the consequences of the Bill. It is sad that only a handful of Conservative Members were present to listen to and digest what he had to say. If there were any justice in this place, the Bill would be thrown out. We could say that on political grounds every day of the week and we would be right. On this occasion we are not talking about a political issue although the Bill does have political overtones. I will try to put in layman's language the points expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
A Bill went unamended from the House of Commons to the House of Lords mainly because the Tories on the Committee in the House of Commons refused to allow any amendments to be carried. Many attempts were made by the couple of people representing the views of Opposition Members but they were all defeated by the casting vote of the Chainnan. One would have thought that one or two amendments would be carried on a private Bill, but they were not because the Chairman and his colleagues thought that they were political in content.
In the House of Lords a couple of lawyers examined the Bill. I am certain that their changes have not been made because of any political motive. They see that clause 3(2)(b) says that the 1845 mining code is being used. Anybody can see that. There are two codes that are usually used—the 1845 and the updated 1923. The 1923 code usually refers to railways. The lawyers find that the 1845 code is not applicable to other parts of the Bill. Somebody in the House of Lords spotted that and said that in order to make the Bill more compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be inserted. It looked insignificant to me until I started reading it last night. I have spent about 10 hours on it since then. I missed Question Time trying to get genned up on the issue. I did that because this is a scandal. A Bill will be passed by Parliament tonight even though it is defective. We know that and we have heard a Tory Member say the same. He has seen a lawyer who has pointed out its defects.
We know—I read it out—that in correspondence the Speaker's Counsel has also said that it is defective. I have the correspondence and it is now written in Hansard and is in the public domain. He is saying, "Okay, the Bill is defective but it will have to be settled in court." That means that ports having their property taken away—either Immingham or one of the other ports—will have to go to court and spend money in order to win their case. Some people would say, "I haven't got the money and I daren't risk going to court." It would cost a lot of money and I hope that it will cost the promoters a lot of money. We 1078 should not get that far. We should kill the Bill here and now. When the Speaker's Counsel says that a Bill is defective, something should be done.
§ Mr. Skinner
I want to try to finish my explanation. I do not need interventions, even if I were to be here all night.
I want to try to fathom out and explain to my colleagues why the 1845 code is used. It is because Associated British Ports is not a railway and it does not want to be trapped by that code. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South also referred to that. Generally speaking, the 1923 mining code referred to railways.
Very few Tory Members have studied the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) does not understand the Bill. He is just the paymaster. There is no doubt that the 1845 code was used because Associated British Ports is not a railway. However, the House of Lords realised that in order to make it compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be added. In the 1845 Act there is no section 85E. That is the clincher. When we see 85E we know that the 1923 Act is being used because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out in a previous debate, that Act contains the additional sections 85A to 85E. By inserting the reference to the 1923 code they have made the rest of the Bill unworkable. That is what the correspondence from the Speaker's Counsel is all about. Solicitors have written and said, "Look here, the House of Lords has amended the Bill but it has made a mess of it and it is invalid."
Anybody with any sense would take back the Bill. Sadly, this is not a true private Bill. At the witching hour hordes of Tories who have not listened to one word of the debate, not even the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South who explained it in a similar way to me, will march through the Lobby. There will be shop stewards on the door telling them which way to go—they call them Whips. The Government will be involved. They will say, "That is not true. A handful of Tories will vote against it." There is no question but that there will be bouncers on the door to get the Bill through.
Why do I suspect that the promoters have changed from using the 1845 Act to the 1923 Act? It is all about saving money, as I discovered when I was discussing the Bill with the legal people. They were looking at it blandly—in a legal fashion—but I said, "There must be something more than words; there must be brass." They said, "We are not sure where that is." I said, "I will find it", and I have. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to distances, but another refers to areas of protection, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South briefly referred to that.
Areas of protection work like a map, and the company can operate only within a clearly defined area of protection. It starts from point A and goes to point B and anybody can say, "The area of protection is as described." The clause refers to metres:For the purposes of the said sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated, the works shall be deemed to be the railway"—we now know that it is not a railway but a port—and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923) in so far as it relates to the works, the area of protection shall, as regards mines and minerals lying within 172.21 metres of the surface of the ground, be 121.92 metres and, as regards mines and minerals lying at a greater depth than 1079 172.21 metres below the said surface, the area of protection shall be increased by 18.3 metres for every 30.48 metres or part thereof.What does that mean?
§ Mr. Skinner
I will. It means that under the 1845 Act there is a half-depth equation, so that for every metre or yard that one goes down into the earth there must be half on the top. If a firm is into saving money, and to stop any prospective mineral excavator later on, it wants a bigger surface area than otherwise obtains. The promoters used the Act that is based on two thirds rather than a half because it protects a greater area around the port.
That is where the money comes in; that is the reason why they have done it; and that is the reason why they have got into a mess. They said at the beginning, "Let us save a lot more money. Let us not use the old Act, which was based on half depth, but one based on a bigger area because by doing that we can protect our property to a greater extent." Therefore, they used one Act for one purpose but another Act for another purpose and made a mess of the Bill. That is why it should have been thrown out.
The promoters are saying that they want the benefits of the 1845 Act and of the 1923 Act—when it suits them—but that they do not care if it messes up the Act of Parliament in between because they can sort that out when they get into court. They want their cake and to eat it.
We should throw ou1t these amendments. Before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, we tried to explain to Mr. Deputy Speaker that the Bill was faulty and that it should not proceed. That was why there were many points of order. If we cannot prevent it from proceeding, we must try to defeat it. The sad thing is that if we do not, the amendments will be carried, with the net result that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and some poor sod will get his fingers burnt. We should make every possible attempt to defeat it.
One of the reasons why I am so convinced that the promoters used the 1845 Act is in the briefing from Associated British Ports, which was sent to hon. Members. That is where it gives the game away. Paragraph 3 says:The amendments to be considered were made by the Unopposed Committee in the Second House. No substantial change is effected by these amendments, which in Clause 3 adds sections 85A to 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to the provisions of that Act incorporated with the Bill, and in Clause 18 substitutes the new general development order".That relates to the amendments on planning.
Even in the hand-out the promoters were still talking about the 1845 Act. They were not talking about the 1923 Act and never have been. That is why letters were sent by petitioners against the Bill, including British Coal, to Mr. Speaker's Counsel. I shall read out what he said. Mr. Deputy Speaker did not like it, but it should be written into Hansard exactly what he said:Thank you for your letter of 16th July with a copy of your letter to Sherwoods of the 13th. I can see no room for doubt that in referring to Sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845 the Bill as originally introduced had the effect of incorporating Section 77, as originally enacted, and Sections 77 to 85, as substituted by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 and since amended. The Lords amendments made 1080 no change in that respect but had the effect of incorporating also sections 85A to 85E. That change appears to me to be one advantageous to your clients. I cannot therefore agree that the Lords amendments have made the Bill's provisions worse in any respect. With your observation Number 3, I do respectfully agree"—this is Mr. Speaker's Counsel saying to a solicitor of British Coal, "I agree with your observation that the Bill is defective"—that Clause 3(2)(b), although it follows the precedent set by section 3(2)(b) of your firm's Associated British Port Bill (Hull)—my hon. Friends will recall that that was blocked but it eventually went through—it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5).Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that it does not mesh in. I do not know how much strength that has in legal terms, but if he is saying that a Bill that is going on the statute book does not mesh in—his words are,it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5)"—that is devastating.
We are told in every textbook on the British constitution that the House of Commons passes Bills, which go to the House of Lords, which crosses the t's and dots the i's and it comes out perfect. That is what we are told. We know that it does not happen often. Generally speaking, that is because no one has spotted it. Members of Parliament do not spot it, Mr. Speaker does not spot it. Speaker's Counsel does not spot it, the House of Lords does not spot it and nor does the counsel in the House of Lords, so the Bill reaches the statute book. Then people say, "Have you heard about the Bill that Ridley introduced? It is wrong." That has happened four times. Many times we have told the Government, "We told you so", but we have done it tongue in cheek. Had we known we should have said so at the time. But this time we have spotted it and so has someone in the legal profession outside this place.
In eastern Europe, they have used the model of the mother of Parliaments left, right and centre as it is supposed to be the best ever. I can imagine people trotting across to Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, and saying, "We have a model at Westminster. We do things properly. Not only do we pass legislation in the House of Commons, but another gang in the other place makes sure that it is perfect, except when it is a private Bill that will make money." It is a scandal that people will make money out of the Bill when people in the House, including Mr. Speaker's Counsel, know that it is defective.
§ Mr. Michael Brown
The hon. Gentleman began by quoting from a letter, but he failed to quote the next sentence which reads:I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those of section 78(5) together would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intention.
§ Mr. Skinner
I had not quite reached that, but there was another paragraph after that. Being a typical, run-of-the-mill Speaker's Counsel who will back every horse in the race, because he is not sure—we have consulted lawyers and we know the score—he stated in the next paragraph:If it were possible at this stage to make more precise the drafting of that part of clause 3(2)(b), I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done.1081 Mr. Speaker's Counsel, having backed a couple of horses, then, being a legal man and knowing that there might be some trouble later and someone might make some money in court, covers his back and sums up by saying:I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done.
§ Mr. Skinner
The next sentence states:The provisions in question, however, were in the Bill as sent from this House to the Lords and their construction, and amendments to the Lords amendments cannot therefore be offered to improve the drafting in this respect.We know that. He is saying that we cannot amend the Lords amendments. Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that if we could amend the Lords amendments they should be amended, but the constitution of this place does not allow that. However, it allows us to send the Bill back. Why is it not going back? We know that if it were sent back there is just half a chance that much more time would be available for people to realise that the Bill is riddled with inaccuracies and faults and that it would finally get buried. More people would read Hansard and see that the number of Tories voting for the Bill has fallen proportionately in the past three years. The majority was only 18 last time and there is half a chance that another handful might say, "That has done it for me. I shall not vote for a defective Bill." If they were here tonight, they would have joined the hon. Member for Nottingham, South in making sure that the Bill was defeated.
That is it in a nutshell. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of what is going on. A company is trying to bludgeon the Bill through so that it can make money by bringing in laundered coal from South Africa to send it to Bassetlaw and other places. Those people are not bothered about the people who live in the villages, because they themselves will not be living in villages in Bassetlaw. They are interested only in lining their pockets. They pushed the Bill through the House of Commons without allowing any votes; they sent it to the Lords where someone found a defect and tried to amend it, but having been amended, it is worse than it was before. It ends up with Mr. Speaker's Counsel who says, in so many words, "I cannot recommend this as being a bona fide Bill."
Every single one of us should redouble our efforts to ensure that this faulty Bill is defeated. Not only will we save many people a lot of heartache, but we shall also make sure that that filthy gang of promoters and the people running Associated British Ports are defeated because they are trying to con the British Parliament. Because most Tory Members of Parliament are missing, they do not understand that they will march through the Lobby tonight to allow a defective piece of legislation on to the statute book.
Mr. Andy Stewart
Like many hon. Members, I believe that the Lords amendments are flawed and should not be approved tonight—I refer particularly to clause 18, page 9, lines 6 to 14—because there has been a total disregard of existing British legislation and, more so, that of the European Commission.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall confine my reasoning to why the House should not approve the amendment to clause 18, page 9, line 8. The amendment relates to the replacement of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The 1988 order was made in October 1988 before the 1082 Private Bill Committee in the House began its hearing. If that Committee had known then that the amendment were needed it should have been included in the Bill and the House given a proper opportunity to debate its implications for the principles behind the Bill.
It would have been most inappropriate to approve the amendment to clause 18, which concerns the terms on which the planning permission for the project is to be granted, unless the requirements of the EC directive 85/337 on environmental assessment have been complied with. Even the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place accepted that there was some doubt about whether there was an exemption for the private Bill procedure. The directive sets up the duty and it is for Parliament to ensure that the parliamentary procedures are not inconsistent with the EC directive.
Complaints have been made to the European Commission, and rightly so, concerning the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the Immingham project. I believe that it would be a grave discourtesy to the Commission for Parliament to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions on the complaint between the Government and the Commission by approving the Lords amendment tonight. Such a discourtesy might mean that the Commission would believe it necessary to take legal action and bring this House into ridicule. The basis of litigation would be that the directive had not been complied with. Therefore, it would be pointless for the House to pass the Bill when the powers in it would turn Immingham into a competitor with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp; and we should not forget the damage that would occur to the Nottinghamshire coal industry and to jobs. Those discussions could be struck down or even suspended as happened in the recent Spanish trawler case.
I contend that the directive should have been taken into account by the Private Bill Committee which could then have considered the environmental effects on the communities in those counties of large numbers of lorries carrying coal to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire power stations. The Committee's report was in error in agreeing with the promoters that local highway authorities are "under no such obligation." The special report from the other place confuses the issue by stating that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road. They do not and, what is more, local authorities in counties affected by the Bill maintain that they do not have such powers.
The briefest statistics relating to the proposed Humber port should start alarm bells ringing in all the communities that will be affected by heavy lorry movements. Ten million tonnes of imported coal means 1 million journeys—half a million to the port for collection and half a million to the receiving power stations. Humberside and Nottinghamshire had a foretaste of that nightmare to come during the 1984–85 coal industry dispute when roads and villages suffered badly with all damage repair being paid for either by the ratepayers or individuals. That may be accepted in a national emergency, but it is totally unacceptable on a permanent basis for decades to come.
I have a final plea for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I ask him to seek from the promoters of the Bill an undertaking that coal 1083 imported through the proposed terminal at Immingham will be transported to power stations only by rail and barge. Only then will the communities facing the threat of coal lorries through their villages be able to rest peacefully in their beds. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes if he will give that undertaking. In the absence of that undertaking, I ask the House to reject the amendment until EC directive 85/337 is complied with.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 157.1085
|Division No. 302]||[9.02 pm|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Amess, David||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Arbuthnot, James||Gorst, John|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Gow, Ian|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Grist, Ian|
|Benyon, W.||Hague, William|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Hannam, John|
|Body, Sir Richard||Harris, David|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Boswell, Tim||Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney|
|Bottomley, Peter||Hayward, Robert|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Hill, James|
|Brazier, Julian||Hind, Kenneth|
|Bright, Graham||Holt, Richard|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick||Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)|
|Butcher, John||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Butler, Chris||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)|
|Butterfill, John||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hunter, Andrew|
|Carttiss, Michael||Irvine, Michael|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Irving, Sir Charles|
|Chapman, Sydney||Jack, Michael|
|Churchill, Mr||Janman, Tim|
|Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Colvin, Michael||Key, Robert|
|Conway, Derek||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Devlin, Tim||Knapman, Roger|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Dover, Den||Knox, David|
|Dunn, Bob||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Durant, Tony||Lang, Ian|
|Dykes, Hugh||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Fallon, Michael||Lightbown, David|
|Favell, Tony||Lilley, Peter|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lord, Michael|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Fookes, Dame Janet||Maclean, David|
|Forman, Nigel||Madel, David|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Mans, Keith|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Maples, John|
|Franks, Cecil||Marlow, Tony|
|Freeman, Roger||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|French, Douglas||Mates, Michael|
|Gardiner, George||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Gill, Christopher||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Sims, Roger|
|Moate, Roger||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Morrison, Sir Charles||Squire, Robin|
|Moss, Malcolm||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Moynihan, Hon Colin||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Sumberg, David|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Summerson, Hugo|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Norris, Steve||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Thurnham, Peter|
|Paice, James||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Patnick, Irvine||Tracey, Richard|
|Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)||Trippier, David|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Viggers, Peter|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Walden, George|
|Portillo, Michael||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Ward, John|
|Price, Sir David||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Warren, Kenneth|
|Rathbone, Tim||Watts, John|
|Redwood, John||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)||Wilshire, David|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Sackville, Hon Tom||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Wolfson, Mark|
|Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wood, Timothy|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)||Mr. Michael Brown and|
|Shersby, Michael||Mr. Toby Jessel.|
|Alexander, Richard||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Allen, Graham||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)|
|Alton, David||Dewar, Donald|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Dixon, Don|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Dobson, Frank|
|Ashton, Joe||Doran, Frank|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Douglas, Dick|
|Barron, Kevin||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Beckett, Margaret||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Beith, A. J.||Eadie, Alexander|
|Bell, Stuart||Eastham, Ken|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Fatchett, Derek|
|Blair, Tony||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Blunkett, David||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Bradley, Keith||Flannery, Martin|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Flynn, Paul|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Foster, Derek|
|Buckley, George J.||Foulkes, George|
|Caborn, Richard||Fraser, John|
|Callaghan, Jim||Fyfe, Maria|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||George, Bruce|
|Canavan, Dennis||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Carr, Michael||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Clay, Bob||Hardy, Peter|
|Clelland, David||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Haynes, Frank|
|Coleman, Donald||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Cousins, Jim||Hinchliffe, David|
|Crowther, Stan||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Cryer, Bob||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cummings, John||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Howells, Geraint|
|Dalyell, Tam||Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Darling, Alistair||Hoyle, Doug|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Prescott, John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Illsley, Eric||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Janner, Greville||Redmond, Martin|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Richardson, Jo|
|Kilfedder, James||Robertson, George|
|Lambie, David||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lamond, James||Rowlands, Ted|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Ruddock, Joan|
|Leighton, Ron||Salmond, Alex|
|Lewis, Terry||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Litherland, Robert||Short, Clare|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Snape, Peter|
|McCartney, Ian||Spearing, Nigel|
|McFall, John||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McWilliam, John||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Madden, Max||Stott, Roger|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Strang, Gavin|
|Marek, Dr John||Straw, Jack|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Turner, Dennis|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Vaz, Keith|
|Meacher, Michael||Walley, Joan|
|Meale, Alan||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Michael, Alun||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Wilson, Brian|
|Morley, Elliot||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Mullin, Chris||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Murphy, Paul||Mr. Michael Welsh and|
|Nellist, Dave||Mr. Terry Patchett.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: In page 3, line 19 leave out "85" and insert "85E" —[Mr.Michael Brown.]
§ Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 155.1087
|Division No. 303]||[9.14 pm|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Carrington, Matthew|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Carttiss, Michael|
|Atkinson, David||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Chapman, Sydney|
|Bellingham, Henry||Churchill, Mr|
|Bendall, Vivian||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Benyon, W.||Colvin, Michael|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Conway, Derek|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Cran, James|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Boswell, Tim||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Devlin, Tim|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Dover, Den|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Dunn, Bob|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Durant, Tony|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Dykes, Hugh|
|Brazier, Julian||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)|
|Bright, Graham||Fallon, Michael|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's)||Favell, Tony|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick||Fishburn, John Dudley|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Fookes, Dame Janet|
|Butcher, John||Forman, Nigel|
|Butler, Chris||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Butterfill, John||Franks, Cecil|
|Freeman, Roger||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Gale, Roger||Neale, Gerrard|
|Gardiner, George||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Gill, Christopher||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Glyn, Dr Sir Alan||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Morris, Steve|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Gorst, John||Paice, James|
|Gow, Ian||Patnick, Irvine|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Grist, Ian||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Hague, William||Portillo, Michael|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hannam, John||Price, Sir David|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Redwood, John|
|Harris, David||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hayward, Robert||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Hind, Kenneth||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Shersby, Michael|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Sims, Roger|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Irvine, Michael||Squire, Robin|
|Irving, Sir Charles||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Janman, Tim||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Sumberg, David|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Key, Robert||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Thorne, Neil|
|Knapman, Roger||Thurnham, Peter|
|Knox, David||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Lang, Ian||Tracey, Richard|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Trippier, David|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Lightbown, David||Viggers, Peter|
|Lilley, Peter||Walden, George|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Ward, John|
|Maclean, David||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Madel, David||Warren, Kenneth|
|Mans, Keith||Watts, John|
|Maples, John||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Marlow, Tony||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Wilshire, David|
|Mates, Michael||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Wolfson, Mark|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Wood, Timothy|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Moate, Roger||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Mr. Toby Jessel and|
|Morrison, Sir Charles||Mr. James Hill.|
|Alexander, Richard||Beggs, Roy|
|Allen, Graham||Beith, A. J.|
|Alton, David||Bell, Stuart|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Benn, Rt Hon Tony|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)|
|Ashton, Joe||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Blair, Tony|
|Barron, Kevin||Blunkett, David|
|Beckett, Margaret||Bradley, Keith|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Lambie, David|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Lamond, James|
|Buckley, George J.||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Caborn, Richard||Leighton, Ron|
|Callaghan, Jim||Lewis, Terry|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Litherland, Robert|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Livingstone, Ken|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Carr, Michael||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||McCartney, Ian|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||McFall, John|
|Clay, Bob||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Clelland, David||McWilliam, John|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Madden, Max|
|Coleman, Donald||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Cousins, Jim||Marek, Dr John|
|Crowther, Stan||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Cryer, Bob||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Cummings, John||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Meacher, Michael|
|Dalyell, Tam||Meale, Alan|
|Darling, Alistair||Michael, Alun|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Dewar, Donald||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Dixon, Don||Morley, Elliot|
|Dobson, Frank||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Doran, Frank||Mullin, Chris|
|Douglas, Dick||Murphy, Paul|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Nellist, Dave|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Pike, Peter L.|
|Eadie, Alexander||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Eastham, Ken||Prescott, John|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Fatchett, Derek||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Redmond, Martin|
|Flannery, Martin||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Flynn, Paul||Reid, Dr John|
|Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)||Richardson, Jo|
|Foster, Derek||Robertson, George|
|Foulkes, George||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Fraser, John||Ross, William (Londonderry E)|
|Fyfe, Maria||Rowlands, Ted|
|Garrett, John (Norwich South)||Ruddock, Joan|
|Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)||Salmond, Alex|
|George, Bruce||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Short, Clare|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Skinner, Dennis|
|Gordon, Mildred||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Snape, Peter|
|Grocott, Bruce||Spearing, Nigel|
|Hardy, Peter||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Haynes, Frank||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||Stott, Roger|
|Hinchliffe, David||Strang, Gavin|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Straw, Jack|
|Hood, Jimmy||Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)|
|Howells, Geraint||Turner, Dennis|
|Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)||Walley, Joan|
|Hoyle, Doug||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Wilson, Brian|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Janner, Greville||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Mr. Terry Patchett and|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Mr. Michael Welsh.|