§ '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State (in respect of England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in respect of Wales), within one year of the coming into force of this Act, to prepare a strategy specifying an indicative level of road traffic for each year over the next ten years such that by the year 2010, total road traffic miles do not exceed 90 per cent. of the levels which apply on the day when this Act comes into force.
§ (2) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult such persons as they see fit.
§ (3) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall as soon as is practicable after its completion publish the strategy and take such steps as are in their opinion necessary to ensure that the indicative levels are met.
§ (4) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall thereafter report from time to time on the progress of the strategy.
§ (5) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may amend the strategy from time to time as they see fit to ensure that the indicative levels are met.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Don Foster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
936 A number of hon. Members may have been expecting the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to move the new clause, but he is out of the country and unable to be with us. With the permission of the House, I shall speak in his place.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and I have not agreed on much, but I am grateful to him for not pressing amendment No. 412 to the vote, thereby enabling us to debate road traffic reduction targets and providing at least a few moments for the Minister to discuss proposals relating to school crossing patrols, on which I hope there will be good news.
Hon. Members will be aware that I am not new to the issue. Indeed, I was delighted to be able to take through the House the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which was the first Act to refer to reducing traffic on our roads. The original version proposed requirements not only on local councils to adopt traffic reduction targets, but on central Government to develop traffic reduction targets over 10 years. Unfortunately, in order to get the Act through the House, the second provision had to be deleted.
The Labour Government seem almost obsessed with targets. They began with five pledges at the general election; now there are thousands of targets for one thing and another. Indeed, there are even targets for achieving targets, so it will not be difficult to convince them to add yet one more to that long roll call. Introducing traffic reduction targets would be of great benefit to them as it would clearly show their commitment to tackling the traffic problem. It would also show that they have taken the advice that they sought and that has been offered to them.
On a number of issues, the Government have been keen to follow the advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. They will therefore be aware that they invited the commission to consider the issue of traffic targets and that paragraph 7 of its report states:We recognise that it should be possible to derive national benchmark profiles for congestion and traffic, but, having been developed in this bottom-up way, they must always be seen as indicative, and not prescriptive. Nevertheless, recognition by Government of such a bottom-up benchmark would demonstrate its commitment to pushing forward the integrated transport agenda.The Government's own advisory body has recommended that there should be national indicative targets for traffic reduction, and that is what is proposed in new clause 3.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to draw up a strategy to reduce traffic by 10 per cent. on the current levels by 2010, and to set an indicative level for traffic for each year between now and then. That would have the advantage of demonstrating the Government's commitment. It would show that they take note of the advice that they have sought and have been given. Equally important, it would enable the Government to redeem the Labour party's promises and commitments.
During the 1997 election, the Labour party promised toreduce and then reverse traffic growth.Those words appeared on the party's election website, in policy briefings issued from Millbank and in the Labour policy handbook. Reducing traffic growth means traffic reduction.
937 The Deputy Prime Minister went a stage further and made clear what he understood that term to mean when he was reported in The Guardian of 6 May 1997 as saying:I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it.That clear commitment was repeated on the Floor of the House during an exchange between him and me during a debate on the Queen's Speech on 18 November 1999. He made it absolutely clear that that was a clear commitment and a target that he had set himself. He said:I readily set the target for myself and I am glad that we are on the way to achieving it.—[Official Report, 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 161.]By setting indicative targets, the Labour party would have a real opportunity to redeem an election promise that was subsequently reiterated by the Deputy Prime Minister. It would also benefit many individual Labour Members. Early last year, 89 Labour MPs issued press releases to their local newspapers stating:Traffic reduction is vital for human health, the environment, and social justice. It was an important Labour election pledge.Perhaps more significantly, 300 Labour MPs have signed up to the Friends of the Earth campaign for road traffic reduction targets. Since Friends of the Earth first proposed a 10 per cent. traffic reduction target, more than 300 Labour MPs have publicly stated their support for that campaign.
New clause 3 merely repeats the words that were used by Friends of the Earth in its campaign. It merely repeats the words that 300 Labour MPs have signed up to and agreed to support. It merely repeats the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It gives voice to the commitments made by the Labour party in the run-up to the general election. I am confident that many Labour Members will be in the Division Lobby in a few minutes' time to support new clause 3. I can certainly assure the House that many Liberal Democrat Members will be there, because they, too, signed up to those commitments. They will honour their commitments by voting for new clause 3.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not push the new clause to a vote, because we are on a tight timetable and we should have a proper Third Reading debate on this huge Bill. However, should they be minded to do so, my advice to the House is not to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's speech shows the dangers of Members of Parliament signing up to the programmes of pressure groups, thereby extinguishing their right to make a sound judgment. I have always believed that we should listen to pressure groups and to our constituents and then make a judgment.
There is a simple problem with this road traffic reduction strategy—it will not work. I speak from many years' experience in my constituency. We have been disappointed by Government after Government who have refused to address the traffic problems of a mediaeval city. We thought we were close, but in the short space of about a fortnight the incoming Labour Government decided to cancel the best hope we had in Salisbury of improving the quality of life for our people and preserving our ancient city by building a bypass. That hope has been dashed by this Government.
938 8.45 pm
We are all in favour of reducing traffic—just as we are all against sin—so long as someone else is doing the reducing. That is the problem with soppy proposals such as this. There are various ways of tackling traffic problems. People can be taxed off the roads, or planned off the roads—which I think is probably the most effective method, speaking as a former Roads Minister. The Bill contains plenty of planning regulations in other guises that would achieve that aim. Public transport can be increased to an extent, and that will help, but it will never meet the needs of the rural constituencies represented by the Liberal Democrats who tabled this daft new clause. Alternatively, everyone can be condemned to gridlock, which is what is happening now.
In fact, only one thing will work. Before they get into their cars, people must ask themselves whether their journey is really necessary. In many cases it is not, and that consideration might enable us to make real progress.
I am worried about the idea of setting targets. In my experience, targets never work—there is always disappointment when they are not met, and it is always possible to find a reason for the fact that they are not achievable. There is another flaw in the new clause. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales toconsult such persons as they see fit.Whom will they consult? They will consult Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and all the other environmental groups—and so they should, and we should all listen to them. In the end, though, they might think of consulting their electorate. If they do so, their electorate will certainly not agree with them.
At the last general election, I was the only candidate who was in favour of a bypass. Guess who won? Guess whose election featured the second smallest swing against the Conservative party? I was deeply grateful to the Liberal Democrat candidate for supporting the anti-bypass proposals, because that ensured that I would be able to continue representing my constituents.
Proposals such as new clause 3 make nonsense of a sensible approach. Clause 92 says that local transport authorities shoulddevelop policies for the promotion and encouragement of…efficient…transport.The Government have got it half right, but they have got it half wrong as well. They refer to less desirable objectives which should be achieved, but certainly will not be achieved under Labour policy, such as the requirement for local authorities tomeet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area.I invite the Government to ask my constituents whether Labour's policy of cancelling the bypass is meeting their needs.
The new clause is not helpful, but we should not vote against it. Indeed, I hope that it will not be put to the vote. I hope that common sense will prevail—and common sense is what we need above all in our transport policy.
§ Mr. Hill
I hope that before I turn to the substance of this short debate, it will be convenient for the House if I say that I intend to accept new clause 32 and amendment 939 no. 418, relating to school crossings and tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence and persuasiveness in urging the Government to make that change; it may be a tiny change in the wording of legislation, but it is likely to make an important contribution to the safety of all children and other vulnerable members of society.
I understand that new clause 4 has been the subject of a significant letter-writing and e-mail campaign in recent days. I know that members of Friends of the Earth, of whom I am one, take a keen interest in the subject.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. I hope that the Minister means new clause 3, which is what we are trying to discuss.
§ Mr. Hill
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant new clause 3.
The House will recall that it was the predecessor of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—sadly, the hon. Gentleman cannot be with us—who sponsored the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. It was a considerable achievement to get that on to the statute book. I appreciate the reasons for tabling the new clause, but I cannot support its inclusion in the Bill.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is aware, the Government's first report under the 1998 Act was published earlier this year. Our report, entitled "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", made it clear that we are not in favour of setting a national road traffic target in England. It may be helpful to remind the House of our reasons.
§ Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford)
I understand that my hon. Friend wishes congestion to be tackled where it actually occurs—at local level—and by local authorities. In that context, I believe that he is saying that a national target is a diversion from achieving real results, but does he not accept that the aggregate effect of local action in towns and cities throughout the country would add up to a national reduction in road traffic? If he does, what is wrong with adopting a national target in that national perspective? Can he assure my constituents and me that if the Government are not to adopt a national target and specify it in the Bill, they will none the less give clear and firm leadership to help achieve substantive results?
§ Mr. Hill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise his powerful commitment, and he is right to say that we wish congestion to be tackled where it happens—at local level. We want to provide strategic guidance to local authorities and others on tackling congestion, but setting a national road traffic target is not the best way in which to do that, for two reasons.
First, as "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" makes clear, the national level of traffic is not a good indicator of our success in tackling congestion. Secondly, a national target takes no account of differing local circumstances. The need for congestion reduction is clearly different between, for example, rural Herefordshire and central Bristol. In the former case, a national target may be unnecessarily high. In the latter case, it may be 940 irrelevantly low. In neither case does it provide a meaningful target against which local authorities can measure local progress.
In "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" we did not simply reject the idea of a national road traffic reduction target. Following the advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport, we said that we would take forward its proposal for separate congestion benchmarks and targets for different area types. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be the firmest leadership from Government in achieving substantive results. I hope to spell out how that will be achieved in my few remaining remarks.
The central contention of "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" is that we should focus our targets on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than crude national traffic volume figures. We do not believe that the national volume of road traffic is a good measure of our success in improving the things that really matter to people at local level, particularly congestion and pollution.
The report showed that over the next 10 years, principally through cleaner fuels and vehicles, we expect the contribution of road traffic to local air pollution to be more than halved. In addition, with widespread support from local authorities, local business and the public for the policies in our 1998 integrated transport White Paper and for the Transport Bill, it should be possible to reduce congestion, even when national traffic levels are rising.
Trends in road traffic growth and the need for improvement will be substantially different in different areas of the country and for different types of road. Benchmarks and targets, and the policies and mechanisms needed to achieve them, should themselves vary. Our strategy, set out in the integrated transport White Paper two years ago, emphasises the need for such a localised approach.
We have the right policies in place and they are beginning to have real effect. There has been a 15 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys. Private sector rail investment has more than doubled since 1996–97. Private sector investment has been brought in: £8 billion for London Underground, £3.3 billion for the channel tunnel rail link, £1.3 billion for National Air Traffic Services.
Next year, we are providing £750 million—a 20 per cent. increase on previous provision—to help local authorities to implement local transport plans. In 2001–02, the figure is set to increase to £1 billion. Additionally, bus quality partnerships are proving a great success in 130 towns and cities, increasing bus usage by 10 to 20 per cent. Bus industry investment has doubled, to £380 million a year.
§ Mr. Hill
That is perfectly true, but the bus industry also benefits from £300 million a year in fuel duty rebate and from £200 million a year in direct subsidy. Therefore the state itself makes a reasonable contribution to the bus industry's success, which I am celebrating in my few remarks.
By 2001–02, we shall have increased annual provision for local road maintenance to more than £2.2 billion, which is 20 per cent. above the 1997 level. Additionally, the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £280 million for transport in 2000–01.
941 The 10-year plan for transport, which we shall publish in the summer, will provide the framework for investment in transport in the next decade. We believe that the way forward is to build on existing targets for the things that matter to people—air quality, the levels of greenhouse gases, health and road safety.
We intend to develop congestion benchmarks and targets for different types of area and road. We shall discuss our proposals for local congestion benchmarks with local authorities, businesses and other interested groups to ensure that targets are specifically tailored to local needs, and reflect what can reasonably be achieved. We shall also discuss the possibility of setting local benchmarks and targets for traffic, as a proxy for other local outcomes for which there are currently no targets.
The Government recognise the importance of effective action to reduce congestion and air pollution when they affect residents in specific areas. Our statement "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" received broad support when it was published earlier this year. We are now proposing positive plans to deal with congestion and pollution and to deliver a sustainable environment at the local level, where it matters.
New clause 3 seeks to divert the Government from that track. I hope very much, therefore, that the hon. Member for Bath will be able to withdraw it.
§ Mr. Don Foster
I have enjoyed the 100 or so hours of debate that we have had on the Bill, and I have enormously enjoyed the Minister's contributions—particularly when he tries his regular trick of speaking very quickly indeed to try to mislead people, or at least to try to mask the more difficult things that he has to say.
The House will have noticed that the Minister said that it was absolutely appropriate for there to be local traffic reduction targets as proxies in addressing all the other issues that matter, such as congestion and pollution. I fail to understand, therefore, why he does not accept that it would be equally beneficial to have national road traffic targets as a proxy in addressing all of those issues.
The Deputy Prime Minister has set the Government a national target, and I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to support him in reaching it. Additionally, 300 Labour Members have pledged to support such targets. It would clearly be wrong not to give them an opportunity—by pressing the new clause to the vote—to say whether they are sticking by those commitments.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 319.944
|Division No. 192]||[8.59 pm|
|Allan, Richard||Drew, David|
|Baker, Norman||Fearn, Ronnie|
|Ballard, Jackie||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||George, Andrew (St Ives)|
|Burnett, John||Hancock, Mike|
|Burstow, Paul||Harris, Dr Evan|
|Chidgey, David:||Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)|
|Cotter, Brian||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Laxton, Bob|
|Dawson, Hilton||Livsey, Richard|
|Donaldson, Jeffrey||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Moore, Michael||Thompson, William|
|Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Oaten, Mark||Tyler, Paul|
|Öpik, Lembit||Willis, Phil|
|Russell, Bob (Colchester)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Sanders, Adrian||Sir Robert Smith and|
|Stunell, Andrew||Mr. Tom Brake.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Corston, Jean|
|Ainger, Nick||Cousins, Jim|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Cox, Tom|
|Alexander, Douglas||Cranston, Ross|
|Allen, Graham||Crausby, David|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Cummings, John|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Ashton, Joe||Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Dalyell, Tam|
|Austin, John||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Barnes, Harry||Davidson, Ian|
|Bayley, Hugh||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Beard, Nigel||Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Berry, Roger||Denham, John|
|Betts, Clive||Dismore, Andrew|
|Blackman, Liz||Dobbin, Jim|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Blizzard, Bob||Doran, Frank|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Dowd, Jim|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Borrow, David||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Edwards, Huw|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Ennis, Jeff|
|Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Reid, Rt Hon Frank|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna|
|Browne, Desmond||Flint, Caroline|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Flynn, Paul|
|Burden, Richard||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Burgon, Colin||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Fyfe, Maria|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Gapes, Mike|
|Cann, Jamie||Gardiner, Barry|
|Caplin, Ivor||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Casale, Roger||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Caton, Martin||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Cawsey, Ian||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Godsiff, Roger|
|Church, Ms Judith||Goggins, Paul|
|Clapham, Michael||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Grogan, John|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Gunnell, John|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Clelland, David||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Clwyd, Ann||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Coaker, Vernon||Hanson, David|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet|
|Coleman, Iain||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Colman, Tony||Healey, John|
|Connarty, Michael||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Corbett, Robin||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Heppell, John||Martlew, Eric|
|Hesford, Stephen||Maxton, John|
|Hewitt, Ms Patricia||Meacher, Rt Hon Michael|
|Hill, Keith||Michael, Rt Hon Alun|
|Hinchliffe, David||Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Miller, Andrew|
|Hoey, Kate||Mitchell, Austin|
|Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Moffatt, Laura|
|Hope, Phil||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Hopkins, Kelvin||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Howarth, Alan (Newport E)||Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Morley, Elliot|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)|
|Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Hurst, Alan||Mountford, Kali|
|Hutton, John||Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie|
|Iddon, Dr Brian||Mudie, George|
|Illsley, Eric||Mullin, Chris|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)||Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Jamieson, David||Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)|
|Jenkins, Brian||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)||Norris, Dan|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)||Osborne, Ms Sandra|
|Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||Pearson, Ian|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Pendry, Tom|
|Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa||Pickthall, Colin|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Pike, Peter L|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Plaskitt, James|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Pollard, Kerry|
|Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)||Pond, Chris|
|Khabra, Piara S||Pope, Greg|
|Kidney, David||Pound, Stephen|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Purchase, Ken|
|Lawrence, Mrs Jackie||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Lepper, David||Rammell, Bill|
|Leslie, Christopher||Rapson, Syd|
|Levitt, Tom||Raynsford, Nick|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)|
|Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Linton, Martin||Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Rooney, Terry|
|Lock, David||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Love, Andrew||Rowlands, Ted|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Roy, Frank|
|McCabe, Steve||Ruane, Chris|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Ruddock, Joan|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|Macdonald, Calum||Salter, Martin|
|McDonnell, John||Sarwar, Mohammad|
|McFall, John||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McIsaac, Shona||Singh, Marsha|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Skinner, Dennis|
|McNamara, Kevin||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McNulty, Tony||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)|
|McWalter, Tony||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|McWilliam, John||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Mallaber, Judy||Snape, Peter|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Spellar, John|
|Marshall—Andrews, Robert||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Starkey, Dr Phyllis||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Steinberg, Gerry||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Stevenson, George||Tynan, Bill|
|Stewart, David (Inverness E)||Vaz, Keith|
|Stewart, Ian (Eccles)||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Stinchcombe, Paul||Wareing, Robert N|
|Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin||Watts, David|
|Straw, Rt Hon Jack||White, Brian|
|Stringer, Graham||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Stuart, Ms Gisela||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Taylor, David (NW Leics)||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wills, Michael|
|Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)||Winnick, David|
|Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)||Wood, Mike|
|Timms, Stephen||Woolas, Phil|
|Tipping, Paddy||Worthington, Tony|
|Todd, Mark||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Trickett, Jon||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Truswell, Paul||Wyatt, Derek|
|Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)||Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and|
|Turner, Neil (Wigan)||Mr. Don Touhig.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ MR DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.