Guidance on Old Mineral Planning Permissions

New clause 16 – in the House of Commons at 9:45 pm on 27th June 1995.

Alert me about debates like this

  1. ' —(1)When issuing guidance under paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether a mineral planning authority would reasonably be expected to impose similar restrictions if the permission had been issued following a new application after 21st February 1982;
  2. (2) Where he feels similar restrictions would have been imposed following a new application after 21st February 1982 his assumption shall be that their provisions are reasonable.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

As perhaps befits this time of night, new clause 16 is moved in a spirit of co-operation. The Opposition, like the local authority associations and numerous countryside and conservation organisations, welcomed the Government's promise in the other place to bring forward new provisions to enable mineral planning authorities to review pre-1982 permissions. However, when those proposals came before the Standing Committee, they were a grave disappointment. Once again, the Bill's promise had been blighted, undoubtedly by the exercise of commercial interests in the drafting room.

Schedule 13 establishes a mechanism for the provision of compensation to mineral operators when new conditions are imposed by the mineral planning authorities on old mineral permissions at active sites. Schedule 13 is the problem for the simple reason that the eligibility and compensation arrangements have led to widespread alarm among local authority associations, and especially at the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representations and expertise on the matter are well known to the Minister.

The compensation arrangements are a major departure from the tried and tested practice in respect of pre-1948 permissions dealt with under interim development orders. IDOs have avoided unnecessary confrontation with industry and unnecessary compensation payments. Our preference would have been for the Bill to introduce a regime based on IDOs, but given the Government's chosen course, our new clause seeks to protect local communities from suffering from poor and outdated standards in respect of old mineral permissions, or from compensation payments to companies that are often vastly profitable.

Mineral extraction, even to modern environmental standards, imposes considerable unwelcome burdens on local communities. They suffer from dust, dirt, frequent and constant noise, and from heavy lorries with heavy loads which are sometimes driven without due care through narrow streets. Those rural communities especially need and deserve the upgrading of old mineral planning permissions. That is a simple matter of progress and justice, and a recognition that the world has changed.

Reasonableness is supposed to be the yardstick by which the requirements of change are to be imposed in schedule 13. If it is, the Government should accept our new clause.

If the conditions to be imposed on old mineral planning permissions are similar to those currently expected for new planning permissions, they should be deemed reasonable. New clause 16 provides for that. Neither the Minister nor industry should have anything to fear, and I look forward to the Minister's constructive response.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his letter, which clearly set out the answers to all the questions raised in Committee? It was extremely helpful, and gave some very useful information.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the starting point for considering compensation should be that, in common with all other forms of development, planning permissions can be revoked or modified only if subject to the payment of compensation? Will he confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),That, at this day's sitting, the Environment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Hon. Members:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. Tedious repetition is not acceptable at this time of night.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

It would be greatly amiss if I were tedious, let alone repetitious, so I shall be neither.

Photo of Mr Piers Merchant Mr Piers Merchant , Beckenham

My hon. Friend will be expeditious.

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

Indeed, I shall be expeditious, as I was trying to be before the Ten o'clock motion was moved.

I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve, and that the industry is already making great strides towards achieving higher environmental standards. As the industry has accepted that it should bear the cost of upgrading planning permissions with regard to "sensory" conditions—those relating to noise and dust—will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the Government amendments should provide only a backstop to ensure that the industry's fundamental working rights cannot be severely restricted as a result of the new review?

Is it not the case that new clause 16 seeks to nullify compensation safeguards contained in the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, were it to be accepted, it would secure the effective confiscation of assets, retrospectively and without compensation? Will he confirm that the guidance notes to be issued by the Secretary of State will carefully reflect the contents of the Bill, and will not be allowed effectively to introduce new requirements with which the industry will be required to comply but which have not been considered first by the House?

I am concerned that the guidance notes, of which I have seen a draft copy and which extend to 45 pages, include references to the use of prohibition notices and the circumstances in which they can be used. They are defined in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. However, the draft notes extend the criteria significantly by introducing new material considerations, and I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will bring anything that effectively changes the current legislation back to the House for consideration.

Photo of Paddy Tipping Paddy Tipping , Sherwood

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised some interesting points about compensation. This aspect of the Bill will prove to be a lawyers' charter. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of the new clause is that it rules out compensation and removes local authorities from the invidious position in which they would find themselves.

Local authorities clearly want to make environmental improvements, but if they are challenged, they face potential costs which they cannot afford. The new clause is an important way for them to avoid those costs. I support it strongly, because the issue of compensation will prove to be a quagmire.

Photo of Dr John Marek Dr John Marek , Wrexham

I shall make a brief contribution in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). We could debate new clause 16 for a long time. Suffice it to say that the Government are again on the side of the landlords and the people with assets who want to stuff even more money into their pockets. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has just spoken, proved that point very well.

Government Members care not a fig about the community. In my constituency of Wrexham and the surrounding area of about 50 miles in each direction, there is more concern about applications for quarrying for various minerals, the dismissal of the community's concerns and desires, and environmental matters than almost any other issue. I think that new clause 16 is very important, and Labour Front-Bench Members were correct to table it.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will confirm in her winding-up speech that, when the next Labour Government take office—Conservative Members may do themselves in over the next 10 days—she will insist that the Labour Government's environment Bill is the equivalent of new clause 16.

That is what the public of this country demand. They are fed up with Conservative Members pleading for money for their own supporters, without worrying about the environment, people or communities. I look forward to seeing new clause 16 take effect, not as a result of this Bill, but in the next Parliament.

Photo of Paul Beresford Paul Beresford Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Environment)

Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 are technical amendments, so I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 16. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is correct when he says that it is an important clause.

As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the system of regulations under the interim development order approach is working. That is our model in this instance. As she knows, there will be no compensation for conditions which do not restrict working rights. Compensation will arise only if working rights restrictions prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site. There is little difference from the test that the mineral planning authorities should be, and are, applying to the imposition of conditions on active IDO sites.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

I am anxious not to intervene upon the Minister too soon, but I know that he is trying to rush, so he may pass over this point. He referred to "prejudice to an unreasonable degree" and that is on the face of the Bill. Will he define that statement? Otherwise, he must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that the legislation could be a lawyers' charter.

Photo of Paul Beresford Paul Beresford Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Environment)

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The word "unreasonable" is used quite commonly in legislation. As she knows already—it has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—we are undertaking preliminary consultation on the draft guidance. That guidance makes it clear that we intend that the industry and mineral planning authorities should follow the same principles for updating the pre-1982 sites as were followed for the interim development orders. That will ensure that there is equal treatment between the sites and the operators. It is a fair and equitable approach.

I am a little astonished—but perhaps I am not so astonished upon reflection—at the reaction of the hon. Member for Wrexham. If that is the kind of approach that we are to expect from the Labour party in future, God help industry and the economy in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

I must invite the Minister to respond again, as I failed to intervene during his speech. He has not explained to the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has the Floor.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not given the House an explanation as to why the legislation is different from the interim development orders. He said that they are working effectively, but he has given no account of why the test of reasonableness in relation to the economic viability of working a site or its asset value should have been placed in the schedule. It is very difficult for us to understand why that proposal has come forward when the Government already acknowledge that they have a perfectly good working arrangement in respect of older mineral planning permission.

I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to tell the House why that change is necessary—why that new duty is imposed. He has not said why our new clause is unreasonable. All that our new clause seeks to do is acknowledge that, where the standards that are to be imposed are equivalent to those that would be imposed on a new planning permission sought today, by definition that must be reasonable. Why is it not reasonable?

Photo of Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

Surely the reason why it is in that schedule is that, although the interim development orders have worked well so far, we have dealt with the easiest cases, and the more difficult cases remain to be resolved. That is why it is necessary to put those later permissions in that schedule.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

I do not believe that that remark was at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman has not in any way explained why what is being dealt with at the moment is more difficult than what was dealt with in the past. We must accept that people are sitting on assets that are in the ground, and they have old planning permissions, which are not appropriate to modern standards, modern considerations and the needs of modern societies.

Is the Minister prepared to speak?

Photo of Paul Beresford Paul Beresford Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Environment)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has touched on it. We are convinced that there is no difference between the IDO and the method that we are moving now. We are consulting industry, mineral planning authorities and environmental groups on draft guidance in relation to putting it into action.

We feel that it would be only fair for compensation to be paid to the industry if there were an effective change in the economic viability of those sites. However, we recognise, as does the industry, the importance of introducing conditions—and the industry is accepting those conditions for the sites—for environmental reasons. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the matter carefully and will accept that, in those circumstances, it is only fair that compensation should be paid if, beyond that, there is an effect on the economic viability of a specific site.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

The Minister may believe that he is being helpful, but I fear that he is not. The economic viability is not an objective measure. It will be for the local authority, the mineral planning authority, to make some judgment about the way in which the new conditions would affect economic viability.

I suggest to the Minister that, if a cash-strapped local authority has to take that into account, it may feel that it is unable to demand that conditions at that site are raised to modern standards, because of fears that it might be subject to challenge under the legislation, as it could be held that there was an economic impact on that company that was unacceptable under the legislation that the Minister proposes.

We believe that very many of those companies are well able to pay for the slight changes—or, in some circumstances, considerable changes—that might result from bringing those permissions up to modern standards. We believe that those companies are better placed to absorb those costs, and to behave responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way, than are local authorities and local communities.

I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot accept what is a very simple new clause, which only defines effectively what is reasonable action and prevents the continuance of ambiguity and worry for local planning authorities which would have to make those considerations—if he intends to sit there and allow local authorities and local communities to bear the brunt of bringing those old planning permissions up to modern standards—we must divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 269.

Division No. 180][10.14 pm
Ainger, NickForsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Allen, GrahamFoster, Don (Bath)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)Fraser, John
Armstrong, HilaryFyfe, Maria
Ashdown, Rt Hon PaddyGalbraith, Sam
Austin-Walker, JohnGalloway, George
Barnes, HarryGapes, Mike
Barton, KevinGarrett, John
Battle, JohnGerrard, Neil
Bayley, HughGodman, Dr Norman A
Beckett, Rt Hon MargaretGodsiff, Roger
Beggs, RoyGolding, Mrs Llin
Bell, StuartGordon, Mildred
Benn, Rt Hon TonyGraham, Thomas
Bennett, Andrew FGrant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Benton, JoeGriffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bermingham, GeraldGrocott, Bruce
Berry, RogerGunnell, John
Betts, CliveHain, Peter
Blunkett, DavidHanson, David
Boateng, PaulHarman, Ms Harriet
Bradley, KeithHattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bray, Dr JeremyHeppell, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Brown, N (N'c'de upon Tyne E)Hinchliffe, David
Burden, RichardHodge, Margaret
Byers, StephenHogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Caborn, RichardHood, Jimmy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Hoon, Geoffrey
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Campbell-Savours, D NHoyle, Doug
Cann, JamieHughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Chidgey, DavidHughes, Simon (Southwark)
Chisholm, MalcolmHutton, John
Church, JudithIllsley, Eric
Clapham, MichaelIngram, Adam
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Clarke, Tom (MonMands W)Jamieson, David
Clelland, DavidJanner, Greville
Clwyd, Mrs AnnJones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Coffey, AnnJones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cohen, HarryJones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Connarty, MichaelJones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)Jowell, Tessa
Corbett, RobinKeen, Alan
Corbyn, JeremyKennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Corston, JeanKhabra, Piara S
Cousins, JimMlfoyle, Peter
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)Kirkwood, Archy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr JohnLestor, Joan (Ecdes)
Dafis, CynogLewis, Terry
Davidson, IanLiddell, Mrs Helen
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)Livingstone, Ken
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)Llwyd, Elfyn
Denham, JohnLoyden, Eddie
Dewar, DonaldLynne, Ms Liz
Dixon, DonMcAllion, John
Donohoe, Brian HMcAvoy, Thomas
Dowd, JimMacdonald, Calum
Eagle, Ms AngelaMcFall, John
Eastham, KenMcKelvey, William
Etherington, BillMackinlay, Andrew
Evans, John (St Helens N)McLeish, Henry
Fatchett, DerekMcMaster, Gordon
Faulds, AndrewMcNamara, Kevin
Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)MacShane, Denis
Flynn, PaulMaddock, Diana
Mahon, AliceRooney, Terry
Marek, Dr JohnRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)Rowlands, Ted
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)Ruddock, Joan
Martlew, EricSedgemore, Brian
Meacher, MichaelSheerman, Barry
Meale, AlanSheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Michael, AlunShore, Rt Hon Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)Short, Clare
Milburn, AlanSimpson, Alan
Miller, AndrewSkinner, Dennis
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon JamesSmith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Moonie, Dr LewisSmyth, The Reverend Martin
Morgan, RhodriSnape, Peter
Motley, ElliotSoley, Clive
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yaidley)Spearing, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)Spellar, John
Mullin, ChrisSteel, Rt Hon Sir David
Murphy, PaulSteinberg, Gerry
Oakes, Rt Hon GordonStevenson, George
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)Strang, Dr. Gavin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)Straw, Jack
O'Hara, EdwardSutcliffe, Gerry
Olner, BillTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Neill, MartinTimms, Stephen
Orme, Rt Hon StanleyTipping, Paddy
Parry, RobertTouhig, Don
Pearson, IanTurner, Dennis
Pendry, TomTyler, Paul
Pickthall, ColinWallace, James
Pike, Peter LWalley, Joan
Pope, GregWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)Wareing, Robert N
Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham Watson, Mike
E)Welsh, Andrew
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)Wicks, Malcolm
Prescott, Rt Hon JohnWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Primarolo, DawnWilliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Purchase, KenWilson, Brian
Quin, Ms JoyceWinnick, David
Radice, GilesWise, Audrey
Randall, StuartWorthington, Tony
Raynsford, NickWright, DrTony
Reid, Dr JohnYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Rendel, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)Tellers for the Ayes:
Roche, Mrs BarbaraMr. Eric Clarke and
Rooker, JeffMr. George Mudie.
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)Bowis, John
Aitken, Rt Hon JonathanBoyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)Brandreth, Gyles
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)Brazier, Julian
Amess, DavidBright, Sir Graham
Ancram, MichaelBrooke, Rt Hon Peter
Arbuthnot, JamesBrown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Arnold, Jacques (Gnavesham)Browning, Mrs Angela
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv')Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Ashby, DavidBudgen, Nicholas
Atkins, Rt Hon RobertBurns, Simon
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Burt, Alistair
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)Butcher, John
Baldry, TonyButler, Peter
Banks, Matthew (Southport)Butterfill, John
Bates, MichaelCarlisle, John (Luton North)
Batiste, SpencerCarlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bellingham, HenryCarrington, Matthew
Beresford, Sir PaulCarttiss, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnCash, William
Booth, HartleyChannon, Rt Hon Paul
Boswell, TimChapman, Sydney
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)Churchill, Mr
Bottomley, Rt Hon VirginiaClapplson, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clifton-Brown, GeoffreyHowell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Coe, SebastianHughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Congdon, DavidHunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Conway, DerekHunter, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Jack, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir JohnJackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cormack, Sir PatrickJenkin, Bernard
Couchman, JamesJohnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Cran, JamesJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, QuentJn (Stamford)Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Day, StephenKey, Robert
Deva, Nirj JosephKirkhope, Timothy
Devlin, TimKnapman, Roger
Dicks, TerryKnight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dorrell, Rt Hon StephenKnight, Greg (Derby N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKnight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Dover, DenKnox, Sir David
Duncan, AlanKynoch, George (Kincardine)
Duncan-Smith, IainLait, Mrs Jacqui
Dunn, BobLang, Rt Hon Ian
Dykes, HughLawrence, Sir Ivan
Eggar, Rt Hon TimLegg, Barry
Elletson, HaroldLeigh, Edward
Emery, Rt Hon Sir PeterLennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)Lidington, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)LJghtbown, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, DavidLioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Reid, Bany (fete of W9M;Lord, Michael
Fishbum, DudleyLuff, Peter
Forman, NigelLyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Forth, EricMacKay, Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir NormanMaclean, Rt Hon David
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)McLoughlin, Patrick
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Freeman, Rt Hon RogerMadel, Sir David
French, DouglasMartJand, Lady Olga
Gale, RogerMartand, Paul
Gallie, PhilMariow, Tony
Gardiner, Sir GeorgeMarshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon TristanMartin, David (Portsmouth S)
Garnier, EdwardMawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Gill, ChristopherMerchant, Piers
Gillan, CherylMills, Iain
Goodlad, Rt Hon AlastairMitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr ChariesMitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Gorman, Mrs TeresaMoate, Sir Roger
Grant,SirAfSlYCamte;Monro, Sir Hector
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Greenway, John (Ryedale)Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)Nelson, Anthony
Gummer, Rt Hon John SelwynNeubert, Sir Michael
Hague, WilliamNewton, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir ArchibaldNicholls, Patrick
Hampson, Dr KeithNicholson, David (Taunton)
Hanley, Rt Hon JeremyNicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hannam, Sir JohnNorris, Steve
Hargreaves, AndrewOnslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Harris, DavidOppenheim, Phillip
Haselhurst, Sir AlanOttaway, Richard
Hawkins, NickPage, Richard
Hawksley, WarrenPatnick, Sir Irvine
Hayes, JerryPatten, Rt Hon John
Heald, OliverPattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidPawsey, James
Hendry, CharlesPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir TerencePickles, Eric
Hill, James (Southampton Test)Porter, Barry (Winal S)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)Porter, David (Waveney)
Horam, JohnPortillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Rt Hon MichaelPowell, William (Corby)
Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)Redwood, Rt Hon John
Renton, Rt Hon TimTapsell, Sir Peter
Richards, RodTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Riddick, GrahamTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir WynTemple-Morris, Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)Thomason, Roy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)Thumham, Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame AngelaTracey, Richard
Ryder, Rt Hon RichardTredinnick, David
Sackville, TomTrend, Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir TimothyTrotter, Neville
Scott, Rt Hon Sir NicholasTwinn, Dr Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shephard, Rt Hon GillianWaldegrave, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Walden, George
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shersby, Sir MichaelWaller, Gary
Sims, RogerWardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)Waterson, Nigel
Spencer, Sir DerekWatts, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)Wells, Bowen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)Whitney, Ray
Spink, Dr RobertWhittingdale, John
Spring, RichardWiddecombe, Ann
Sproat, IainWiggin, Sir Jerry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)Wilkinson, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir JohnWilshire, David
Steen, AnthonyWinterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stephen, MichaelWinterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Stem, MichaelWolfson, Mark
Stewart, AllanYeo, Tim
Streeter, GaryYoung, Rt Hon Sir George
Sumberg, DavidTellers for the Noes:
Sweeney, WalterMr. Timothy Wood and
Sykes, JohnMr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.