---

Column 670

for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Why is not the House full of people making similar points on behalf of their constituents? The answer lies in the route itself. Although this metro route begins at Five Ways and runs through the city centre, it is underground until it gets to the wasteland of the heartlands--a derelict industrial area. It runs through that area until it reaches Bromford Bridge and enters my constituency. Only at that point does it begin to affect anyone's home.

At that point, against the background of the problems that I have described, one would have expected the West Midlands passenger transport authority to be particularly careful about consulting the people who live in the Bromford estate. Tragically, the arrangements for consultation were grossly inadequate. They were regarded as inadequate by myself, by local councillors and by the residents. A summary of our opinion is that the arrangements for consultation were a farce. The members and officers of the West Midlands passenger transport authority are totally incapable of understanding the difference between informing people and consulting people. The information that people were given was sparse, and the consultation was virtually nil.

The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a tremendous amount of consultation. I listened very carefully to his remarks. He listed leaflets. But leaflets are not consultation ; leaflets are information. He listed exhibitions. But exhibitions are not consultation, unless one invites people's views and then pays attention to those views. Otherwise, exhibitions are only information. The hon. Gentleman mentioned meetings.

I asked the passenger transport authority what it regarded as the consultation arrangements for my constituents. It gave me a list of meetings that had taken place--meetings with Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and Councillors.

The first meeting, on 25 April 1989, was with T. Davis, MP. That so-called meeting consisted of my giving coffee to the director general and the head of communications of the passenger transport authority in the Strangers' Cafeteria, where they told me that they could not discuss the route through my constituency because it was a matter for the city council. That meeting is described as consultation.

Then there was a meeting with John Tomlinson, MEP. I do not know what took place at that meeting ; Mr. Tomlinson is not the MEP for the area in which my constituency is located.

Next on the list is a presentation to city council members. Let that be noted : "presentation". But that is not consultation. The next item on this list of so-called consultations is a presentation on 10 May 1989 to west midlands Members of Parliament at the House of Commons by Birmingham city council. Once again I say, "presentation" is not consultation.

The next on the list is a briefing of Councillor R. Spector. I do not know which ward Councillor Spector represents, but it is not in my constituency.

Then there is a meeting with T. Davis, MP, and Councillors Turner and Jones at Birmingham city council offices. That meeting certainly took place. We asked a lot of detailed questions that could not be answered.

Then--still on consultation--is listed a meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I do not know what the result of that meeting was, but my hon. Friend the Member for

---

Column 671

Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) subsequently announced that he agreed with me about wanting to have the metro rerouted.

Next on the list is a meeting with the sole surviving Conservative councillor in my constituency, who subsequently announced that he agreed with the Labour party on this issue.

Then we have a meeting with C. Crawley, MEP, who is the MEP for my constituency. After the meeting, she announced that she opposed the route through my constituency.

Next comes a meeting with T. Davis, MP, dated 20 October. That was the occasion on which I went to the city engineers' department and the city engineers agreed that I was right and that it was physically possible to reroute the metro on the other side of the motorway. Then there came another meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I am not sure what happened, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has not told me that he changed his mind as a result.

Mr. Rooker : My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not in the Chamber but, as my Member of Parliament, he confirmed to me today that he still believes that the route should go the other side of the M6--in other words, into his constituency.

Mr. Davis : I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

There followed five meetings with residents' groups and other associations- -two with the Bromford community centre committee, which is opposed to the route, one with Kevin Hawkins and Forse, the group that has tried to petition against the route, one with the Bromford Conservative group, which I believe to be opposed to the route, and one with the Birmingham branch of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, of whose views I am not certain.

Under the heading

"Activities following the submission of the Bill"--

this is still supposed to be consultation--I read that, on 30 November 1989, a reception at the House of Commons was attended by the hon. Members for Yardley, for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Northfield.

Then we have a meeting on 22 January with T. Davis, MP at Summer lane. That meeting was arranged by the hon. Member for Yardley and I shall come to it in a moment. But that is not consultation ; that was never consultation ; it was information.

My constituents, the local councillors in my constituency and myself suggested in June 1989, after the route was made public, that it would be a good idea if we had real consultation. We suggested that the way to do that was to set up a working party with representatives of the city council, the passenger transport authority and local residents to discuss the route as it would affect our part of Birmingham.

That request was made in June 1989, and nothing was done about it until the hon. Member for Yardley arranged a meeting for me with the passenger transport authority in January, which I shall come to in a moment. Tonight, however, the hon. Gentleman told the House that there were changes in the original route through the Bromford estate as a result of what he described as consultation.

Mr. Bevan : Will my hon. Friend allow me?

---

Column 672

Mr. Davis : I am not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall certainly give way.

Mr. Bevan : As a matter of fact, I regard the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend even though he sits on the Opposition Benches, and I am not frightened of saying so.

I think that I was wrong in what I said. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there had been any changes in the route, and I thought that he meant the whole route. When I said that it had been moved, I had in mind the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). I want to put that right straight away.

If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall take this opportunity while I am on my feet to deal with another matter. Although the hon. Member for Hodge Hill does not construe any of the meetings that he has mentioned so far as consultation, he did not mention--on top of all the leaflets and officers' meetings at the Bromford neighbourhood office--the sports centre meeting, which I should have thought was consultation.

It must be noted that, in all those consultations, Centro received very few letters or telephone calls from Bromford residents. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that every attempt had been made to consult all along--and that includes the meeting that I subsequently arranged for him because he told me then that no meetings had been held.

Hon. Members have referred to the option of taking the route the other side of the M6 and said that that would be more sensible. That option was looked at, but it would have cost another £16.6 million and would have reduced the potential number of travellers by two thirds.

Mr. Davis : If I may intervene in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I will come to those points in due course if I am allowed to make my speech.

The hon. Gentleman is right. A public meeting was held. It was requested by the councillors in my constituency and by me, and that meeting was very well attended. I do not have a record of the number of phone calls made by my constituents, nor do I have a record of the number of letters that they sent. If the hon. Member for Yardley is concerned about the number of phone calls, it would be easy to get my constituents to telephone the PTA. However, my constituents thought that they should be consulted face to face. Consultation does not take place on the telephone. Telephone calls may be all right for protests, but they are no good for consultation.

My constituents wanted consultation. What we requested and what all the councillors in my constituency supported--

Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis : The hon. Member for Yardley may shake his head, but even the Conservative councillors supported our request. We wanted a working party to discuss the route as it affected that part of Birmingham.

The hon. Member for Yardley referred to the public meeting at which we made clear our views about the two proposed routes. Earlier, the hon. Member for Yardley said that the chosen route was, as he described it, on the periphery of the Bromford estate instead of along what he called a spine road--he means Bromford drive. To suggest that the change was the result of consultation is a travesty of what really happened.

---

Column 673

The PTA thought that it had been clever. It told the people on the Bromford estate that there were two alternative routes through the estate, both of which were bad, but that one was worse than the other because it affected more homes. The PTA asked the people on the Bromford estate to choose between the alternatives.

The PTA was trying to set one set of residents against the other. It wanted to set them arguing among themselves about whose homes should be affected. That was the old tactic of divide and rule. The residents, local councillors and I refused to be taken in by the clever people in the PTA. We refused to choose whose home should be sacrificed. Instead, we came up with a third option which would not affect any homes.

The hon. Member for Yardley referred to a referendum. He said that the clear majority of people affected by the route are in favour of it. He referred to a figure of 62 per cent. in favour. That statistic conceals the truth.

Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis : The hon. Member for Yardley may disagree with me, but I found the figures in the PTA's documents. The PTA admits that, in the Bromford estate, only 10 per cent. of people were in favour of either of the metro routes. Ninety per cent. voted against the proposal. The hon. Member for Yardley has done less than his duty to the House by not stressing that point.

The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a previous scheme. That is true. Five or six years ago, a scheme was abandoned because, according to the hon. Member for Yardley, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not sure what he means by the wrong time, but it was certainly in the wrong place. But the officers and some members of the PTA do not agree with the hon. Member for Yardley. They have said openly and publicly that they still believe that the original route, demolishing one side of Coleshill road, was the best possible option.

The hon. Member for Yardley also said that the new route would help to regenerate the industrial wastelands of Birmingham. That is an interesting comment and it is precisely what my constituents, the councillors in my constituency and I have suggested.

We suggested that the metro route should run on the other side of the motorway where no one lives. We suggested that it should run through the Fort Dunlop site, which is ripe for redevelopment. That site has been included in the heartlands area to which I referred earlier and which the hon. Member for Yardley described as an industrial area scheduled for redevelopment. The metro is intended to serve that heartlands area elsewhere along its route.

If the metro ran through the Fort Dunlop site to the north of the motorway, instead of through the Bromford estate to the south, no one's home would be affected. A spokesman for the West Midlands passenger transport authority, Mr. Michael Parker, has said publicly that the residents objecting to this Bill are trying to move the metro from their backyard to someone else's backyard. As for my constituents, that is a completely unjustified slur on a

---

Column 674

group of very reasonable and very responsible people. We have suggested a different route which goes through Fort Dunlop and affects nobody's backyard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to legitimate objections to development near someone's home, the need to strike a balance and consider where legitimate objections shade into unreasonable objections, and the need to put the development near people instead of on derelict land. In Birmingham, for most of the route, the development runs through derelict land. It does not go near anyone's home until it reaches the Bromford estate.

Not only residents of the Bromford estate have suggested the alternative route. It is supported by all the councillors in the ward, by all the councillors in my constituency, by myself as local Member of Parliament, by our Member of the European Parliament, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, whose views are particularly important because the Fort Dunlop site is in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South explained that it was sometimes difficult to choose between sectarian interests and the broader public interest. But this is not a case of being opposed to the metro system ; it is a case of being opposed to the route as it will affect the Bromford estate. It is not only a small group of residents, but the overwhelming majority of people in that estate, all their councillors, their Member of Parliament and their Member of the European Parliament. We asked for a working party to consider our objections and our alternative route, and our request was rejected. I inform my hon. Friends from Walsall that my consultation experience has been very different from theirs.

The response to the alternative by the West Midlands passenger transport authority has been as inadequate as the original arrangements for consultation. Basically, it told us that there are three reasons for rejecting it, and two of those reasons were reflected by the hon. Member for Yardley. First, it told us that it was not physically possible, because a new road called a spine road--that is where the term comes from--is planned for the northern side of the motorway to assist redevelopment of the heartlands, and it was physically impossible to find room for a spine road and the metro.

That is a serious objection, so I went to see the chairman of Birmingham Heartlands, a former conservative Member of this House, Sir Reginald Eyre, and I went to the city engineers' department. I was told that in fact it was physically possible to find room for both the road and the metro. So we knocked that objection on the head. The PTA then fell back on its second objection, which was, "Ah, we don't really mean that it is physically impossible ; we mean that it is too expensive." We asked how expensive, and it said, "An extra £12 million." It was not £16 million. The hon. Member for Yardley used a bogus figure, which I will explain to him afterwards in detail if he wishes. The extra cost is £12 million. That is the figure that we got. We were told that it will cost that much because a tunnel would have to be built to get the metro to the other side of the motorway.

That sounded like a lot of money, so we asked how that sum compared with the total cost of the scheme. We were told that the total cost of the route from Five Ways to Birmingham airport would be £224 million. We said, "That sounds an even bigger amount of money." We were

---

Column 675

told, "Yes, it is expensive because we need to build a tunnel through the city centre." We said, "Oh yes, how much will that tunnel cost?"

We were then told that the authority was planning to provide not one but five separate tunnels, at a cost of £100 million, to ensure that the metro is environmentally acceptable in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), plus £7.5 million to get the metro from my constituency into the neighbouring constituency of Meriden, plus another £12.5 million for tunnels in Solihull. The authority is willing to spend £120 million for five tunnels elsewhere, but it will not spend £12 million--one tenth of the total--for a tunnel to ensure that the route is environmentally acceptable to the people who live on the Bromford estate.

When the PTA was faced with that comparison, it fell back on its third objection. It said, "In any case, we cannot put the metro on the other side of the motorway because it would have an adverse effect of ridership. We want the people of the Bromford estate to use it. We do not think that the people of Bromford estate will go to the other side of the motorway to use it. We want to put the metro as near as possible to the homes of people living in the Bromford estate so that they can pop on to the metro and go to Five Ways, the convention centre, the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport whenever they like."

The residents and I asked the authority to tell us what the effects on ridership would be. It told us that if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the number of people using it would be reduced by two thirds. That is the figure that the hon. Member for Yardley used. When we asked what that meant in terms of passenger journeys, we were told that the number of trips--that is what the authority calls it--would be reduced from between 1,900 and 2,200 trips a day to between 500 and 800 trips a day. When we expressed some incredulity about those figures, we were told that they came out of the computer of the passenger transport authority. We all know about computers. My constituents and I wanted to know why the computer said that there would be a reduction of two thirds, or 66 per cent., rather than some other percentage.

We asked the passenger transport authority what assumptions it had put into the computer to produce the figures. We were told, "You will have to come back because we do not have time to do it today and the man who is responsible for it has to catch a train to Derby." That is what they call consultation.

As the House will have gathered, my constituents are not easily fooled. By now they have come to distrust any figures given to them by the passenger transport authority. They have looked at the report given to the city council in January about the effect on ridership figures of moving the metro route.

The residents of Bromford estate have drawn my attention to the one thing that we have been told about ridership figures. The figures assume that, if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, it would not be possible to provide a station at Bromford Bridge. At the same time, one of the few facts that we have elicited about the calculation of the extra cost--which produced a figure of £12 million for a tunnel--is that it includes £7.5 million for the cost of providing an underground station at Bromford Bridge.

The passenger transport authority and the hon. Member for Yardley claim at one and the same time that,

---

Column 676

if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the ridership figures would be reduced by two thirds because there would not be a station at Bromford Bridge, and that it would be prohibitively expensive for the metro to go north of the motorway because it would mean building an underground station at Bromford Bridge. They cannot have it both ways.

The House will understand why my constituents, the local councillors and I are beginning to suspect that the West Midlands passenger transport authority has made up its mind that the metro will run through the Bromford estate and is trying to cook the figures to justify its choice. My constituents have suggested a constructive alternative, but the only response of the passenger transport authority has been to oppose it with arguments that are incorrect, incredible and inconsistent.

I now come to what I regard as the worst aspect of the affair. Hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber are probably saying to themselves that a case has been made for a careful and independent examination in Committee of the details of the route as it will affect the Bromford and Firs estates. Supporters of the Bill may argue, "The objections are merely details ; let us vote for the Bill tonight. Let us vote for it in principle and leave the details of the route to the Committee. After all, the residents of the Bromford and Firs estates have petitioned against the Bill and their case can be examined in Committee." I regret to tell the House, as other hon. Members have, that the determination of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to bulldoze the Bill and the route on to the statute book knows no bounds of decency or democracy.

As soon as my constituents lodged their petition against the Bill, the passenger transport authority lodged an objection to their right to be heard by a Committee of the House, on the grounds that the authority did not intend compulsorily to purchase my constituents' homes but only to impose unacceptable noise levels and take away their view. This is a matter to be settled by the Court of Referees, and I ask the House to take note of the attitude of the West Midlands passenger transport authority.

Altogether, 34 organisations have petitioned against the Bill, including banks, property developers, businesses, educational institutions, statutory undertakings and British Rail. They include organisations as diverse as the Post Office and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and five residents' groups in Walsall, Solihull and my constituency.

The Minister suggested that the Bill should be given its Second Reading so that it can be examined in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Yardley suggested much the same in introducing the Bill. However, unlike the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was kind enough to express his concern on this point. My constituents are much heartened by my hon. Friend's letter on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, which told them in September :

"During the last metro controversy in the area, I did make the point to Councillor Bateman that it was impossible to implement a new transport system without the active support of the residents. I will liaise with Terry Davis over this matter once Parliament has resumed to ensure that no development takes place without the consultation and consent of local residents."

There is no doubt that the project does not have the consent of the residents in my constituency. The passenger

---

Column 677

transport authority is trying to stop residents putting their views to a Committee of this House. It has objected to all the resident groups' rights to be heard.

Those residents are ordinary people--people whose only investments are in their homes--yet the passenger transport authority wants to prevent them from having the opportunity to explain their fears and objections to Members of Parliament.

Throughout the build-up to the Bill, the attitude of the passenger transport authority has been, "Don't question us. We know what is good for you." That is not democracy, it is dictatorship, and that in itself is a good enough reason for opposing the Bill.

9.46 pm

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : I have spent six hours in the Chamber, but it has been worth it because I have been able to listen to the debate and to hon. Members who actually represent their constituencies. As transport spokesman for my party, I have received representations from Walsall members of my party which I should like to put on the record tonight. I also represent people who have written to me out of the blue because I am my party's transport spokesman. I have received many letters, although perhaps not quite as many as those received by some Conservative Members.

Mr. Turner : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has also received letters of support for the metro from Liberals in Wolverhampton?

Mr. Fearn : I have had a letter from one councillor who, I believe, is not standing at the next election. However, I have received many other letters. Liberal Democrats in Walsall have been working hard on this issue.

Liberal Democrats are not opposed to light railway systems and I would support them wherever they may be proposed, although I shall speak out if they affect people's homes, as has been suggested tonight. Nor are Walsall Liberal Democrats opposed to a light railway. They support the Walsall- Wednesbury link, although they are opposed to the Walsall-Wolverhampton link, firstly on environmental grounds in certain areas. The planned route will decimate the Greenway between the M6 and St. Annes road. The elevated section between Granbourn road and Clarke's lane would apparently be lost altogether and the Willenhall memorial park, which has been mentioned, will be intruded upon. The park is a memorial to the dead of the first world war.

I also know that the rail will run just feet from the back doors of residents in Belinda close and that 2,000 signatures in opposition to the route have been presented. I know that the Bill's promoter said that 15 per cent. object to the Bill, but what I do not know is, 15 per cent. of what figure? The involvement of 2,000 residents sounds a great number to me, and they should be listened to.

There is already a confused road network in the area, and I believe that the chosen route will create chaos in that network with its eight level crossings.

For the metro to be successful, it should be street-running for the majority of its length. Perhaps comment will be made on that aspect of light rail--should it or should it not be street-running? The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and four other persons walked the

---

Column 678

route, and I can tell the House that the majority of it has little to do with street running. It is a quiet walk and there are few houses.

Have options been considered closely? What are the objections to re- establishing the heavy rail link between Walsall and Wolverhampton by extending the Shrewsbury sprinter service through to Walsall? it is obvious that wide-ranging consultation has not taken place, despite what has been said. More information must be made available, and the residents who will be affected by the route are calling for more consultation. The environment and the people will suffer unless firm alterations to the routes are agreed with all those concerned. Although in principle I agree with the light railway, I cannot support the Bill--

Mr. George : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Turner : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn : --unless alterations are made in the planning stage. I tell those who sought to intervene that I have finished.

9.51 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : I refrained from seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until those hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest had made their "constituency" speeches. In principle--like every other hon. Member, I believe--I am in favour of a more modern transport system for the urban areas. Whatever our political differences across the Floor of the House or within our parties, I do not believe that anyone can be satisfied with the present situation or with the present plans for solving the problems that face us. The Government's solution is to build more roads for more cars. It is barmy. There is no long-term future in such a proposal. The world will run out of rubber before we arrive at a solution.

It is clear from the proposals that have been produced by the transport authority that another route into Birmingham from Sutton Coldfield, which can only pass through my constituency, is a prime candidate when it comes to improving the transport system. It would be a money spinner : there is no question about that. The route from another area of Sutton Coldfield will be electrified through to Erdington. The other route from Sutton Coldfield will have to come through my constituency and through the Kingstanding area. I do not have any details, and I am not arguing for one proposal or another. I have an interest, however, and so do my constituents, in the conduct of organising Bills and in the routes that are set out in legislation. What I have heard so far about the route proposed in the Bill I do not like.

Like many other hon. Members, especially those who represent Birmingham constituencies, I have been on the receiving end over the past six months or more of many letters and petitions from people who are not my constituents. In the normal course of events, one passes this correspondence to the local Member, and in all cases I have passed it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Many of the letters were personal, not photocopied. Many people made a plea--I considered it to be a reasonable one--that I should go to the Bromford estate. I was asked to listen to the residents about the future of the estate. When I was no more than seven or eight years old,

---

Column 679

I remember being taken to the area for a day out when it was the Birmingham race course. I do not think that I have been on the land since those days.

It was suggested that it was no good going to the Bromford estate on a Sunday afternoon. Accordingly, I visited it at 7.30 am on Friday. I met representatives of the residents' association, having first consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill because the estate is in his constituency. I use the motorway every week. I also use Collector road. That is because using the two routes varies my drive out of Birmingham to the M1. I am aware of Collector road. I have travelled the M6 ever since it has opened and used the Bromford viaduct. However, I have never before been to the Bromford estate underneath it.

I was appalled. There is an elevated section of the motorway and there is the railay line. The quietest thing there is the canal--another method of transport--underneath the motorway. There are aircraft flying overhead. Nobody thought to bury the power lines. Subject to weather conditions, these make no noise, but they are an eyesore. The visual amenity for the residents of the estate is zero. As well as the pylons, the railway and the motorway, there are the factory sites for Dunlop and its associated factories, which can be seen through the pillars holding up the motorway.

Nobody offered to screen the motorway. Trees have been planted, but they are not mature. The green lung--this is a misuse of the phrase--running along the motorway is the only bit of green on that part of the Bromford estate. It is used not just for football pitches, walking the dogs and so on, but for having parties and picnics in the summer. The idea of picnicking under a pylon near the M6 with a railway running alongside beggars belief, but that is the only bit of green for the residents. Someone has decided that this bit of green is the ideal route for the metro line. I have walked from one end of the estate to the other.

Mr. Turner : If all these serious environmental matters are of such relevance, why is it that Birmingham city council, at an earlier stage, did not take these points on board? The route has been set by a Labour- controlled city council.

Mr. Rooker : For the same reason why, in the past, various public authorities erected power lines and the motorways while ignoring the needs of local people. It is as simple as that. The decision has been taken, but the residents do not agree with it. I have heard from both sides of the House the argument that this is a point of detail, a Committee point, to be dealt with upstairs. That is the answer to most issues when one is discussing the principle, but I have also heard that the right of people to be heard upstairs will be taken away because they are opposed by the very people who are promoting the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis : Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole issue has blown by the intervention from the hon. Member for--

Mr. Bevan 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 119, Noes 28.

---

Column 680

Division No. 102] [9.58 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bermingham, Gerald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Bidwell, Sydney

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Boyes, Roland

Bright, Graham

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Budgen, Nicholas

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Chapman, Sydney

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Corbett, Robin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Duffy, A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Durant, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Eadie, Alexander

Fallon, Michael

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Flynn, Paul

Fookes, Dame Janet

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Freeman, Roger

Fry, Peter

Fyfe, Maria

George, Bruce

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Graham, Thomas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Hague, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Christopher

Haynes, Frank

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Hunter, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knowles, Michael

Knox, David

Lamond, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Lilley, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

McFall, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Miscampbell, Norman

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Mudd, David

Neubert, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Norris, Steve

Page, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Porter, David (Waveney)

Redwood, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Sackville, Hon Tom

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Snape, Peter

Speller, Tony

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Summerson, Hugo

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Trippier, David

Turner, Dennis

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Waller, Gary

Wareing, Robert N.

Warren, Kenneth

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Watts, John

Winnick, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Roger King and

Mrs. Maureen Hicks.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Buchan, Norman

Callaghan, Jim

Clay, Bob

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

---