|Previous Section||Home Page|
From the wonderful pictorial representation of the area included in the map circulated today by my noble Friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, the deputy chairman of the
Column 318urban development corporation, it is obvious that the living waterfront proposals would provide sufficient development. There would be no problem constructing a link road across the scheme. The Minister could indulge himself and spend all the money that he never seems to have available for other purposes, by building a link road across the existing swamp or another one.
I shall vote against the scheme because I am not convinced that it is needed. If the urban development corporation is prepared to amend the scheme by removing the barrage, leaving sufficient land and other resources to regenerate the southern part of Cardiff, and to provide even the 30,000 jobs that have been mooted, the proposal would have my complete support, and not one of my right hon. and hon. Friends would vote against it.
I hope that my plea will reach the ears of the urban development corporation and of Associated British Ports, and that they will reconsider the matter and return with an amended scheme. I would not oppose any money being spent in south Wales. God knows, it needs money and jobs to counterbalance the tremendous decline in industry suffered under the present Government. The Government have ravaged south Wales and the mining communities, and there has been no investment. If the Government are prepared to put money into the proposal, I am prepared to support it--but only if they get rid of that damned barrage.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : Representing Carmarthen, I have none of the first-hand knowledge that has been evident in many of the excellent speeches made this evening. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, if the proposals mean that public money will come to Wales, I can guarantee that my constituency, and many others in Wales, could do with that money just as much as Cardiff.
As I support the Severn barrage, where does that place me in respect of the Cardiff barrage? I was surprised by many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), but my support for the Severn barrage is purely on energy grounds. Although it may create an environmental disaster for bird life, that must be set against the terrific energy that could be produced.
About 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy could be produced by a Severn barrage for 100 years or more. There would be no greenhouse effect, no acid rain, and no nuclear waste. I advocate a barrage for the Severn for energy reasons, and I for one would be prepared to pay the environmental cost. The Cardiff bay barrage is a matter of economic development versus the environment.
I admit that I am not an expert on Cardiff bay, but like the Towy estuary it has mudflats, which are important to migrating birds. I am strongly influenced when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds takes a line on development. In the summer of 1988, I watched a video on 500,000 dunlin dinners and was impressed by its content. I was not aware that Britain's estaries are home to 40 per cent. of the wading birds that traverse Europe ; the estuaries are very important to those birds. They come from Scandinavia, Siberia, Canada and Greenland. When we consider the environmental impact of the barrage, we
Column 319must do so not as Cardiffians or Welsh people but as Europeans, and we must be interested in its global implications.
Mr. Gareth Wardell : Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), when I visited Cardiff bay I did not stay at the Celtic Bay hotel for fear of being flooded by the rise of groundwater that he mentioned. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) think that the environment of Cardiff bay is fit for wading birds? The malodour of the Dettol being poured into it to protect wading birds from its filth was such that I wondered whether a major improvement in its environment was necessary, with or without the barrage.
Mr. Williams : Other hon. Members have fully answered that point, and the same occured to me when I was listening fully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. There is filth in many of our towns and cities and terrific pollution in many of our rivers. The answer is not to drown the filth and wildlife but to clean our rivers and to treat sewage. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Biologically, the mudflats in Cardiff bay are extremely productive--more productive than the most productive agricultural land. The food that they produce is extremely important to migrating birds.
I am concerned about the possibility of severe pollution if the barrage is built. The sewage that flows down the Taff and the Ely is rich in nitrates and phosphates. That is bound to cause problems, especially in the summer, because the high concentration of nitrates and phosphates in the trapped water in the bay will cause eutrophication. It is then a question of how severe that eutrophication will be. I believe that in the summer, rather than fresh water eutrophicated water will be trapped, it will stink of grey -green algae and its texture will be more like pea soup. The main environmental concern must be that we are destroying a site of special scientific interest that is important to migrating birds.
Mr. Flynn : I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Recently I tabled questions about eutrophy. Does he agree that the algae problems and what we are seeing in the North sea are so worrying that we must tackle them, not just in the Taff and the Ely, but in all the rivers that run into the Severn, which has been described accurately as the greatest flush toilet in Europe? If it was not for the scouring action of the second highest tide in the world, it would be a stinking mess now. Is that not a different problem? If the barrage comes to Cardiff, we must tackle the problems of our rivers.
Mr. Williams : That is not a different problem. The barrage would exacerbate the problem rather than contribute in any way to solving it. It would increase the problem and hold it within Cardiff bay. The only argument in favour of the barrage is the economic development argument that this public money will stimulate private investment and create jobs and high-cost housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) completely demolished the economic case. I do not know what the figures are, but if £100 million is to be spent in Wales, I want the whole of Wales to share in the benefits. It is a case of priorities. Two weeks ago we debated tolls for the Severn bridge. Why not use that
Column 320money to get rid of those tolls rather than spend it on Cardiff? That would benefit the whole of the Welsh economy. Then there is the M4. There are problems in Newport and on the stretch from Baglan to Neath.
My constituency needs a link road from the M4 to Ammanford and the upper Ammanford valley. There are no end of road infrastructure improvements which would help to bring jobs into all our areas. I am impressed by the arguments of hon. Members representing the Rhondda, Neath and Rhymney valley constituencies. They are poor areas. Earlier this year I was privileged to be involved in the Pontypridd by-election. In those weeks I travelled and got to know Pontypridd, as I did not know any of those valley communities previously. There is terrific impoverishment. Those communities need public investment. Surely the money should go to these other areas of Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about the neglect and destruction of manufacturing industry during 10 years of Conservative rule. Manufacturing should be our priority, particularly considering our massive balance of payments deficit. We should direct public money into manufacturing. That would attract private investment. The Cardiff bay barrage rates nowhere in the list of priorities for economic development ; nor are there environmental arguments in its favour.
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : At the outset I must say that I find the private Bill procedure objectionable for gigantic projects which would normally be the subject of a detailed legal planning inquiry. That is a reason why the promotion of the barrage scheme is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in conducting the argument about the issues at stake for the citizens of Cardiff and south Wales. Moreover, by using the private Bill procedure, the barrage scheme does not have to come under the direct legal scrutiny of the European Community's environmental impact assessment directive. Although environmental impact assessment studies have been made, the Commission cannot intervene in any way to assess the value of the barrage to the economy of Cardiff and south Wales, as against the possible environmental damage.
I am opposed to the way in which the scheme has been brought forward, on the ground that one should allow full public participation in the construction and development of the barrage scheme, and on the ground that it does not come under the legally enforceable directives on environmental impact assessment.
Mr. Gareth Wardell : Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that every environmental development or consideration in Britain should always come under the scrutiny of the European Commission. He seems to be making the assumption that the European Commission needs to intervene in all our deliberations. One only has to consider what it has done in the case of two dangerous mutagens and carcinogens--carbadox and olaquindox--to realise that its interventions are often far from helpful to Britain, and that they can be extremely unhelpful.
Column 321that my hon. Friend would agree that that applies to the present British Government--they are capable of making mistakes.
There is a European Community directive that requires major schemes--not every little factory scheme that is being developed--that are perceived to have a major impact on the environment to be examined specifically to assess that impact and, because of the private Bill procedure, that directive has no force.
Mr. Flynn : My hon. Friend has referred to the document. A report has been made by independent people. He may be excused for not having seen it, because there is no copy in the House of Commons Library, but there is a copy in the House of Lords Library. I commend that report to him because it is a splendid study, and it was not made by anyone with an axe to grind. Few schemes of such a magnitude have been presented with such a thorough independent assessment of their environmental impact.
Mr. Griffiths : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a study made by the university of Liverpool. I am aware of it and I knew that that environmental impact assessment was going to be made as a result of questions I put to the European Commission about whether it could intervene, and because of letters I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales a number of years ago.
The directive has no legal force behind it to make an environmental impact assessment, and that is why I am against the use of the private Bill procedure ; it does not depend on any legal force, but on whether any attention is paid to the assessment.
There is also the question of the amount of money that will need to be spent simply because the barrage is to be built. Several hon. Members have referred to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the additional costs, over and above the money that will go to develop the Cardiff docklands. He mentioned some £200 million in additional expenditure, and because of the existence of the lagoon, there would also be a need to spend £500,000 a year on its maintenance.
One must ask whether that is financially sustainable in the long term for the city of Cardiff. It is all very well for the Minister to refer to the ability of the corporation to sell land and other assets to help pay for development and the maintenance costs, but there will come a time when assets cannot be sold to pay for running the dockland area.
Mr. Rogers : I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when the Minister gave that information. After Associated British Ports has made extensive profits, the running costs of the scheme will be met by the Welsh Office. The Minister said that, after the initial capital grants of about £400 million, there will be sufficient funding for the scheme. The Welsh Office will run the scheme and the profits will be taken by the corporation and Associated British Ports.
Mr. Grist rose --
Column 322will come from asset sales. The sum from the Welsh Office is about £250 million, of which £150 million has already been announced.
Mr. Griffiths : The one thing that we know is that, wherever the money comes from--some of it is coming from the Welsh Office--it is a major investment, but is it strictly necessary for the docklands to be developed? Can the docklands be developed without the barrage that is currently proposed? I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the answer is yes. As some of the money does not have to be spent, therefore, could it not be put to much better use cleaning up the Taff and Ely rivers, for example, just to mention the two that are directly affected by the scheme?
Mr. Michael : Without the barrage, we were previously talking about £219 million of expenditure, so the balance of the £402 million is directly barrage-related. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appraisal has to describe the benefits, the jobs that will be brought in and the costs? Such detail is open to scrutiny by the Committee.
Mr. Griffiths : That is true, but we are taking an unnecessary step if we go for the barrage scheme. I believe that we can get virtually the same results and have more balanced development across south Wales if some of the money is used for other projects which could be just as useful for the economy and the environment. We should not spend it all on the barrage, against which there are so many question marks. That is why I shall not support the Bill being sent to a Committee. I would have much preferred the matter to be dealt with by public planning inquiry procedures in Cardiff.
Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North) : I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). We have had a well-balanced debate so far. It has even been relatively good-tempered. I calculate that, including interventions, seven hon. Members have spoken in favour of, and seven against, the Bill. I shall add to the majority by speaking in favour of it.
I do not understand or accept the do-nothing approach of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who talked about resenting and rejecting a ripple effect out of Cardiff. I far prefer the tone of a letter from Councillor Bill Herbert, of which I think all Welsh Members have a copy. He was last year's Labour Lord Mayor of Cardiff. He comes from the valleys and, like many of us in Cardiff, has a considerable affinity for them. He anticipated the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. He rejected the idea of a ripple and talked of a river of development and opportunities flowing from the south Cardiff redevelopment.
I far prefer the real enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). It was a contagious enthusiasm as he described his experiences of living in Cardiff and his view of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong connections with Cardiff. His brother, Michael Flynn, is a Labour councillor in my constituency, and I am glad to have him there. He is certainly as hard- working and diligent a member and servant of the Labour party as the hon. Member for Newport, West. I appreciated the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman.
Column 323I share that enthusiasm for the regeneration of south Cardiff. It is necessary. Cardiff is an attractive city with many fine features--old ones such as the castle and civic centre and newer ones such as St. David's centre which, despite what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, did not come about by organic development, but through the planning process. It moved on from the Ravenseft development to which he referred.
The regeneration of south Cardiff will create 6,000 new homes, 25 per cent. of which will be important low-cost housing. It will create 5,000 to 6,000 sq ft of industrial business units and 3,000 to 4,000 sq ft of office space. Estimates have ranged as high as 30,000 jobs from the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Those jobs will not be confined merely to Cardiff or south Cardiff, but will be taken up widely through south Wales.
In my constituency on the northern edge of Cardiff I have the obvious example of Amersham International and A.B. Electronics. Between them, since 1983, those two firms have created more jobs than the total unemployment in my constituency. According to that narrow theory, a naive person might imagine that unemployment in my constituency has been eliminated. That has not happened ; many people travel to work in Cardiff--to those two firms in my constituency--and will certainly travel to the new jobs created in south Cardiff. The regeneration will provide a dramatic expansion to the economy of south Wales. It will increase the region's importance. As a capital city of Wales--
Mr. Rogers rose--
I often see Cardiff as rivalling the city of Bristol across the Severn. I see us rapidly overtaking Bristol in importance. We will soon outstrip that provincial town in England, and Cardiff and south Wales generally will, properly, rank alongside Birmingham. This necessary regeneration of south Cardiff will improve our environment. It will change the present rundown docks, which are only a shade of the past. It will rejuvenate the variety of assorted and not too attractive buildings, and the other traces of industrial dereliction--which all too often include waste, litter and debris being dumped on the waterside.
Mr. Rogers : I support all that the hon. Gentleman asks for--I do not want to make his speech for him. Will he comment on my proposition about achieving the same purposes without the barrage--just a consolidation of the area which, I accept, is desperately run down?
The regeneration of south Cardiff will eliminate those mudflats which are best seen at low tide. I defy anyone to describe those mudflats as attractive or beautiful. At low tide we see, essentially, the results of industralisation and digging out Cardiff docks. That involved the extensive reclamation of our coastline, which has totally changed since the docks were dug out.
The present mudflats are the result of accretion since the digging out of Cardiff docks. I understand from experts that this is demonstrated by the presence of spartina grass, which is found growing only on high level, stable mud. Cardiff bay is natural, but the present mud is
Column 324not. It is ugly and its appearance can be improved upon. The environment of not just Cardiff but the valleys could be improved. The economic benefits will not be confined to Cardiff. The barrage will be a catalyst for improving the Taff and the Ely rivers that flow through the valleys. One advantage of water privatisation was the splitting of the functions of poacher and gamekeeper. There is now a proper gamekeeper in the form of the National Rivers Authority.
What will happen with the barrage and the south Cardiff development will be a great challenge for the NRA--probably its biggest challenge for the foreseeable future. Can it rise to the occasion? I am confident that it can. The barrage and the south Cardiff development will be the catalyst for an improvement that will flow up the rivers through the valleys. The people will demand for their valleys what they see happening in south Cardiff.
I am in considerable sympathy with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember being almost a lone voice calling out that the case for the birds and the environment was too important to go unheard. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) was the only other Member who, in the 1985-86 Session, shouted "Object" when the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill came before the House.
Mr. Ron Davies : I am reluctant to intervene, as I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his speech. However, for the sake of accuracy it should be put on the record that I objected to the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill. It was only when the hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to continue to block the Bill that I withdrew to allow him, as a local Member, to voice his objections.
Mr. Jones : I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which certainly do not fit in with my recollection. However, I do not want to quarrel with him, because I know that he has strong sympathy with my point.
I welcome the RSPB's constructive contribution. I was grateful to receive a letter from its parliamentary officer this week which provided most useful information. Early in the letter, he said that the RSPB is not against the redevelopment of the city. The word "not" was underlined. Instead, the RSPB is proposing a living waterfront scheme. The proposal is well-intentioned, but I am not sure that it is as well worked out as the scheme before us. I understand that its proposal would involve the loss of slightly more than 15 per cent. of the SSSI and would increase accretion in the remainder of the bay, which would in turn enlarge the amount of salt marsh, which would have the effect of reducing the feeding grounds. I also understand that there is a problem with the water supply, which might be much more expensive for the living waterfront scheme than has been imagined. That would lead to further problems with water quality for the scheme.
A survey, not of the living waterfront scheme, but which might be close enough for our purposes at this stage, was carried out by Peat Marwick McLintock. It tried to estimate the most likely effects on Cardiff of a barrage, of a mini-barrage, or of not having a barrage at all. The mini- barrage is not dissimilar to what is now proposed as a living waterfront. Peat Marwick McLintock estimated that the mini-barrage would create just under 15,000 jobs, but that the full barrage would create more than 22,000 jobs. Private investment for the mini-barrage would
Column 325generate only £607 million, while £1,051 million of private investment would come from the full barrage. Most importantly, the mini-barrage would require a leverage of private to public investment of only 4.8 : 1 and the full barrage would require 8.9 : 1. The net worth of the development would be more than £77 million from the full barrage, but there would be a loss of £61 million from the mini-barrage. That substantially makes the case for the barrage. It makes it superior to the mini-barrage and probably also to the living waterfront scheme proposed by the RSPB.
Mr. Gareth Wardell : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that studies throughout the world show that such large-scale investment in a capital city gives rise to the danger that the periphery becomes relatively poorer because of the rapid expansion that follows elsewhere? What does he think the Government would do to invest money in the valley communities--over and above what is in the valleys initiative--to ensure that they develop and there is no huge gap between the standard of living in Cardiff and that in the valley communities?
I am more than willing, in my regard for the RSPB, to countenance the society fully arguing its case before the Committee that will examine the Bill. Indeed, I regard that as another important reason why the measure should receive its Second Reading tonight. The RSPB is right to point out that the suggested artificial feeding area is only theoretical. There is a real risk to the bird population. There are uncertainties about the artificial feeding alternative and about the birds relocating in other estuaries.
We welcome the commitment of the promoters to develop alternatives, but I still call for all efforts to be made to achieve the greatest success of the alternatives. In turn, I want the RSPB's fullest involvement. The artifcial feeding ground is an innovation and an opportunity, and the RSPB should be involved in managing it. It would have the greatest chance of getting it right and of developing the potential use of the concept elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a wide assumption about the cost and funding of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I expect that the total cost of £402 million will, in large part, be met by land sales and other receipts, and certainly not solely from grant aid. In addition, we shall have the leverage of much larger commercial investments. It may not mean a return to the Welsh Office of money expended, but it will mean much less than £402 million having to leave the Welsh Office.
I note that the best argument against the Bill came from a supporter, "The Insider" columnist in The Cardiff Independent, who wrote :
"If CBDC really believe there will be so little damage within their arbitrary lines and none outside, they have nothing to lose by offering full compensation for all damage, wherever it occurs, because if they are right--and there is no excuse if they are not--there will be little or no damage, and so they will have to pay little or no compensation. It is simple--but unanswerable." But it is answered. Clause 12 of the Bill provides full protection. There is a protected property area based on a
Column 326six-metre ground water contour. That should be well beyond the furthest extent of any affected property. But that does not limit it. Anywhere outside the protected property area is covered. In other words, anywhere in the United Kingdom is covered. A claim anywhere can be made against the CBDC and if, by independent survey, loss can be shown, there will be full reimbursement. We have the fullest protection and the fullest potential. I am more than happy to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Flynn : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the House aware that there is terrible news tonight? The massacre in Romania is continuing, with at least 2,000 men, women and children having been cut down by the secret service police. Can you use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that by tomorrow, the House will have an opportunity to express its outrage at, and to use our great influence on, President Ceausescu, who has driven his country to a state where it can no longer be regarded as a civilised country?
Mr. Elliot Morely (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I recognise that I am an outsider, but for that very reason I want to talk about the national significance of the scheme, and its national impact. I appreciate very much the role played by local Members of Parliament, and feel that the people of Cardiff are very fortunate in being represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Those two excellent and hard-working Members have put the cases for and against the barrage with sincerity and diligence, and they deserve every credit for so doing.
I have my views on architecture, design and even popular planning, but I do not wish to speak about them : those are issues properly to be decided by local people, who will have to live with the designs. I want to discuss the way in which the importance of Cardiff bay fits into the national scale of things, and also to answer some specific points--particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the effect of the barrage on the bird population.
Cardiff bay is important in its own right. It is a site of special scientific interest, and its destruction will create a precedent. I would not claim that that is why it has attracted attention, but that is not to say that the area is not valuable in itself. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has defined it as the most important small estuary around the shores of the greater Severn estuary, and there is no doubt that the Severn estuary is a site of international ecological importance.
The Severn, including the Taff area, has been identified as a wetland of international importance, and is a candidate for listing under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance. It also qualifies as a special protection area under article 4 of EC directive 79/409, on the conservation of wild birds.
Column 327standing at the Bar of the House making a ridiculous noise. Can you bring them to order, or else throw them out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that the hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber will be prepard to allow the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to make his speech in the same manner as earlier speakers.
It could be argued that the RSPB has a vested interest, and is therefore keen to stress the area's importance. Let me refer hon. Members to a report given to the Committee in the other place by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's own body, which is given the duty of presenting impartial scientific advice on which the Government may make their decisions. In the council's view, "it has become very clear before this Committee that its importance"--
the importance of Cardiff bay, that is--
"bears no relation to the size ratio between it and the estuary."
The point was put to Dr. Parker on day four :
" So though we were told in opening, I think, that the whole of the Severn Estuary site is some 37,000 acres and Cardiff Bay itself is only 400 acres, the importance of Cardiff Bay, the Taff-Ely estuary, is far greater than those proportionate figures would perhaps suggest?'
Yes', he said, there cannot be any argument on that point' ". It has been mentioned that the estuary was artificially created. In the 18th century it was far larger, and would have supported a greater diversity of species than it does today, owing to the artificial changes in the construction of the docks. Nor is it true that its importance is due to the enrichment of the mud from nutrients flowing through sewage in the rivers. According to the NCC, that enrichment
"is not a matter which is dependent totally on the sewage coming down the rivers, it is matters mixed in from the sea including sewage and other nutrient algae and matters found in the natural marine waters."
The bay is therefore not dependent on pollution.
The crux of the issue is that the development of Cardiff bay should concentrate on clearing up the waterside and getting rid of pollution and dereliction, rather than spending money on the barrage scheme. There is no evidence that the barrage scheme will necessarily attract inward investment. There is a great deal of evidence that if the area is covered by water, because it is a sheltered feeding area and the mudbanks are higher than the Severn estuary, it would remove an important feeding area for the species on the Severn estuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West referred to increased density. Scientific research has shown that if Cardiff bay is closed off, the density of birds on the Severn estuary will be increased by 70 per cent. in the case of dunlin, the main species that would be affected
Mr. Michael rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House divided : Ayes 112, Noes 15.
Division No. 28] [12.20 am
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Column 328Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Glyn, Dr Alan
Golding, Mrs Llin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector
Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Sackville, Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Gwilym Jones and
Mr. John McFall.
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter L.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Alan W. Williams and
Mr. Win Griffiths.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time :--
The House divided : Ayes 105, Noes 16.
Division No. 29] [at 12.31 am
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)