HC Deb 08 July 1963 vol 680 cc940-71
Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I beg to move, in page 49, line 20, after"recreation" to insert: except motor-boating and water ski-ing". With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if the House thinks it convenient, I should like to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 50, line 5, leave out"motor-boating, water ski-ing".

The Amendment in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", insert: but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir"— is not connected with the other two.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

It will be convenient to take them together.

Mr. Hooson

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

This Bill is designed to enable a joint authority to be set up representing 13 statutory authorities and to authorise its members to extract water from the River Severn. So that that abstraction may be carried out, it is the aim and purpose of the Bill to enable a reservoir to be built in the Clywedog Valley which will control the flow of the water down the River Severn. The Severn itself would be used merely as an aquaduct for the conveyance of the dam in the Clywedog Valley.

The Clywedog Valley is situated about three miles from the small town of Llandiloes, in Mid-Wales, where I live. It is a beautiful, secluded valley. It is off the beaten track. Not many tourists go there. It is the discriminating, knowledgeable country lover who usually goes to the Clywedog Valley. Even the roads which lead to it are extremely narrow. This valley, which contains one of the tributaries of the Severn, runs parallel to the Severn Valley from the mountain basin of Plynlimmon.

If the Bill is implemented, there will be a reservoir in the Clywedog Valley of about four miles in length. Its depth at its deepest point will be 225 ft. and it will submerge between 500 and 700 acres of land. For those hon. Members who are interested, there was a delightful photograph of this valley in The Times of 26th July last year which I recommend all country lovers particularly to look at. One of the essential qualities of this valley is its seclusion and peace. It is"far from the madding crowd" and away from any industrial development. It is one of the relatively few places in our country to which one can go for almost complete peace. The only noise which one may hear is that of a tractor, the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cows, or the swish of the fisherman's rod, since it is a very good fishing area too.

The people who live there are, in the main, farmers, and shepherds. Since 1915, there has been a camp of the Birmingham Central Grammar School near a farm called Bryntail to which boys have been able to go from Birmingham to enjoy the peace and country pursuits of the area.

The Bill provides for the preservation of the amenities of the area. Clause 77(1) provides: In the construction of the works authorised by this Act the Authority shall have regard to the preservation for the public of the natural beauty of the area in which those works are situate and the enjoyment of the area by the public. That is a general Clause providing for the preservation of amenities. One amenity is undoubtedly the quiet which is to be enjoyed there and the essential rural nature of the area.

No one who knows this valley could possibly conceive of allowing motor boats or speed boats drawing water-skiers to be operated there. It is not that I am opposed to the idea of water ski-ing or motor-boating. These are very desirable sports and I have nothing to say against them, but there is a place for everything in our community and the Clywedog Valley is certainly not the place for this type of sport. In my view, it would be completely alien to the desirable amenities in this rural area.

Admittedly the area is to be changed when the valley is submerged, and there are many people who may say that some Welsh valleys have been improved by the reservoirs which we find in them. That may be so, but I do not think that anyone has yet suggested that we should turn them into a kind of Black pool or have the kind of sports which are incompatible with the districts in which they are situated.

I turn to the provisions of Clause 79 which, in my view, are incompatible with the general requirements of Clause 77. Under Clause 79, The Authority may provide facilities on the reservoir for the purposes of such forms of recreation for the public as they may think fit, but shall have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of water to be supplied by them under section 49 (Supply of water in bulk to Montgomery shire Water Board) of this Act. The Amendment in page 49, line 20, would amend that subsection by adding after"such forms of recreation" the words except motor-boating and water ski-ing". The Amendment in page 50, line 5, which amends subsection (6,a,i) is consequential on that in line 20 because subsection (6) simply allows byelaws to be made regulating, among other matters, motor-boating and water ski-ing.

It seems to me that in Clause 79 the drafters of the Bill have slavishly followed a provision in the Great Ouse Act, 1961. I am not here concerned with the question of precedents generally; the drafters of the Bill can go where they like for their precedents. I am concerned with a particular district and a particular provision. I am not opposed to a reservoir, if it is built in Wales, being used for amenities. For example, I do not object to the idea of sailing boats using this reservoir. I do not object to the pursuit of fishing or other recreational facilities of this kind. What I do object to very much is the idea of motor-boating and water ski-ing being carried on there. It is tragic enough that a valley of this kind should be submerged at all and I believe that the House of Commons must look carefully into all proposals of this kind, before coming to a conclusion whether the valley should be submerged, to ensure that there is a crying public need for it and that the necessity from the public point of view overrides the other considerations.

There is a happy rural community in this area. Conceding that the need for this reservoir is established, we should try to preserve its character as much as possible. We should try to preserve the character of the countryside not only in Wales but in all other parts of Great Britain. The number of areas of our country which are still havens of peace where one can escape from the artificiality and noise of city life is decreasing. This is such an area.

In my view, there is no place for the noisy speed boat and water ski-ing on the Clywedog reservoir. May I say to those who are fond of this sport that I believe that there is a place for it in other areas, but not in this sort of country area? Whether it is in England, Wales or Scotland does not particularly worry me. Therefore, the House should accept the Amendment, whereby we ensure that the Authority cannot in the future allow this kind of sport on the reservoir, as it would be allowed by the Bill.

It might be suggested that this is a permissive provision only. The promoters of the Bill have already indicated that they are prepared to accept the Amendment. Even so, once we have this kind of provision in a Bill, pressure is always brought by certain sections of the community to enforce the power that the Authority would always have. Therefore, one's only safeguard is for the House of Commons to ensure that the Bill does not contain this provision.

This matter was first raised in another place by Lord Chorley when the matter was debated in the House of Lords. I understand that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) raised the matter in the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House, but that he was assured that nobody had protested very much about this provision. That was not quite correct, although I accept that the assurance was given inadvertently, because I understand that this matter was raised at the town meeting in Birmingham and that 500 old boys of the Birmingham Central Grammar School had signed a petition concerning it. Various organisations had already written to the promoters complaining about this provision in the Bill. However, the promoters are prepared to accept the Amendment. Suffice it to say that there is considerable support for my Amendments.

My last point is purely a constituency point but, nevertheless, an important one from the public point of view. The Montgomeryshire Water Board, one of the 13 authorities constituting the Joint Authority, is the only authority which will draw its water direct from the reservoir. All the other authorities will abstract the water from the river as it flows down. Naturally, the people of Montgomeryshire are concerned with the wholesomeness of the water which they draw from the river. They are concerned also with the expense of purifying plant.

I understand that if, for example, sailing boats and fishing are allowed, the question of purification is a minor one. If, on the other hand, any number of motor boats are allowed on the reservoir, much more complicated problems of purification and of preserving the wholesomeness of the water will be created. This is an additional, although not a major, reason for ensuring that motor boats and water ski-ing are not allowed on the reservoir.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

I should like to begin by saying a word to my colleagues from Birmingham. I pay tribute to their authority and to all those responsible for the care they have shown concerning the Elan Valley, one of the lovely places in Wales, to which they came many years ago to establish a similar water scheme. I am not old enough to know, but I have met people who are old enough to be able to say that the Elan Valley is more beautiful now that it was in the days before Birmingham came and took it over.

We get many of these water Bills concerning Wales and it is time that we began to consider whether our present system of doing this is the right one. My view is that the time has come when there should be complete public ownership of water, and I should like to see Wales have its own Welsh water board. That, however, is another matter.

I hope that the Minister and out friends from Birmingham have listened to what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has said. His is a county in which the population is less than it was a century ago. It is a county with grave economic problems. I and my colleagues think that it needs a new focal point of growth. We have made our proposals, which, I hope, will be approved by the country in the not too distant future. Montgomeryshire is a county which over the generations has suffered by continually losing its people. It is a community which has very deep associations with a good deal that is best in Welsh life.

I do not know whether the Minister has heard of Llanbrynmair. If he mentions that name to any man or woman in Wales, or to any Welsh man or woman throughout the world, it will at once conjure up two sets of initials—S.R. and J.R., who played a notable part in the development of Nonconformist radicalism in Wales in the last century. It is, therefore, a place that evokes emotions.

7.15 p.m.

We ought to pay attention to what people think about their neighbourhood. Love of a neighbourhood can be very strong and deep. There is an old French proverb to the effect that the most enduring form of patriotism is stupid patriotism. This kind of concern is never fully understood. I hope, therefore, that what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said will be listened to.

In the town which I represent in South Wales, we are very fortunate. We do not have many places left where we can say with poetic measure that we can stand and stare. We dare not stand and if we stare, we stare at the noise up above. That is not like W. H. Davies in"Leisure". I am proud that we have kept the Gower. I hope that we always keep it. I hope that my compatriots will fight to the death before they allow the Gower to become what some of our coastline has become. We must have some places where we can get away from noise.

I speak as an old coalminer. The lot of the coalminer has improved a great deal. His life has improved. There is, however, one thing that the present-day miner is subjected to that I was not. I am almost terrified of the noise in which he works for six or seven hours every day. He needs a bit of rest sometimes and a holiday. Certainly, those of middle age and beyond deserve a place where they can go and rest.

I am glad to know that the promoters of the Bill have agreed to the Amendment. That being so, I hope that nobody else objects. If they agree that in the setting of the Clywedog Valley it is desirable to preserve the amenities and prevent noise, and the local people think that if ski-ing and motor-boating are allowed they will add noise to an area which is so peaceful and restful, I say to my Birmingham and Coventry colleagues that that is not too much to give to a county which is providing them with water. It is not too much to give to Mid-Wales.

But for the water of Mid-Wales, Birmingham would come to a stop tomorrow. The local people are not asking too much. Their local authorities have co-operated in every way possible. Now, through the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the county asks that the promoters should accept the Amendment. This is not too much to ask and having regard to the local co-operation, I hope that the promoting authorities and those who speak for them in this House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

I speak as a Birmingham Member and I should like, if permissible, to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I should correct the record to start with. I do not think the position is that the promoters have agreed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Yes, they have.

Mr. Howell

The position is that the promoters are neutral about it. It arrives at a very late stage of the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

rose—

Mr. Howell

The hon. Member must wait until I have finished. I speak now for myself and I think that the Amendments have been put down unreasonably at a very late stage of the Bill. Faced with the need to pass this tremendously important Bill, affecting not simply Birmingham, but the whole of the Midlands, the promoters said that if the price of getting the Bill through—and they thought that it was an unopposed Bill—was acceptance of the Amendment, they were prepared to pay that price. That was the situation.

The promoters were prepared to accept the Amendment because of that, but other interests have now come forward and have objected to the objectors: they object to the Amendment being put forward. That is now the situation. The Bill is wanted for the purpose of getting water for the industrial heart of this country, and although there are views about this Bill and I shall expand on them in a moment, so far as the mechanics are concerned the promoters would do anything which the House asked them to do to guarantee the Bill a safe passage. That is the situation, I think.

Mr. Thorpe

I am sure that the hon. Member wants the record to be as accurate as other hon. Members in the House would wish it. I am not certain whether he was in the House when the Privilege matter was originally raised—I think two Mondays back—but it will be within his recollection that the letter from the promoters was to the effect that the committee of promoters was prepared to agree to the Amendments which had been proposed, and then there was a condition precedent, subject to you and the other Members…refraining from further opposition…"—[Official Report, 24th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 952.] As I understand it, that is now withdrawn by the apology the next day, and whether the Amendments would be agreed to of not. I do not think it is for us to question their motives. They went on the record as being not in opposition, or reluctantly in agreement, but in agreement.

Mr. Howell

That was a fascinating speech by way of interruption, but I think it confirms what I was saying, that the promoters would not object. But others have objected. So the position of the promoters is that they want the Bill and were prepared to have this consideration if the House wished it, and they would not object, as long as that would not hold up the main part of the Bill.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

Do I understand that my hon. Friend is saying that the view of the promoters is that they are withdrawing their letter addressed to myself and to other hon. Members?

Mr. Howell

They are doing no such thing. I think I made it perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has his name to this Amendment, but why he has, I just cannot fathom at all, and I want to deal with that in a moment in a kindly way.

Before doing that, however, I would say that it seems to me and, I think, to the promoters, too, a rather peculiar business, that a Bill which has been the subject of a town meeting and a town poll and which has passed through all its stages in the Lords and through the House of Commons should be subject to this sort of Amendment at the very last minute. I am not suggesting that hon. Members have not a right to try to amend it now. They obviously have, and that is why we are discussing the Amendment, but I do not myself think that it is in the best Parliamentary traditions to leave this sort of Amendment to this very last stage in the proceedings on a Bill. [An Hon. Member:"Nonsense."] The hon. Member may say it is nonsense. That is a subject on which, I readily admit, he knows a great deal.

The fact is we have spent a long time considering this Bill, and Clause 79 follows almost exactly the provisions in the Great Ouse Water Act, 1961, in respect of which the hon. Member for Montgomery—[Hon. Members:"Honourable and learned."] yes, and learned, although by the tenor of these Amendments I have a little doubt about it. The hon. and learned Member suggested that we ought not slavishly to follow precedents, but I would say to him that I thought that that was what the law was all about—the question of precedents. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has argued many handsome briefs by quoting precedents for days and days in the courts. In fact, the question of precedents is of extreme importance in the law of our country, and I would kindly ask the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to consider what is the position of promoters of Private Bills.

If this House says it wishes a certain provision to be in a Private Bill, then the promoters of the next Private Bill look at that preceding one. It is the only thing to guide them as to what Parliament has said and Parliament has done before. In this case the promoters saw that Parliament as recently as 1961 decreed a provision in exactly identical terms, and they ought not to be castigated in this House for believing that Parliament, two years later, in 1963, is going to apply the same views. That is precisely the position here.

When the Great Ouse Bill was in Committee of this House this specific proposal was put in at the instigation of the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) who was the Chairman of that Committee. When a Member of this House sitting as the Chairman of a Committee on a Private Bill decrees this specific provision, saying that it ought to be in the Bill, then I submit that the promoters of this Bill are not to be castigated for believing they are doing the right thing in following exactly the same course as that already taken.

But it is not only the Great Ouse Act which contains this provision. We have a precedent which is far more recent than that, as the Joint Parlia- mentary Secretary well knows. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon that we have just been I do not know how many weeks working on the Water Resources Bill and sitting very late to deal with it.

I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), whose very kind remarks about Birmingham are much appreciated, that in Standing Committee upstairs we have been doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do, and that is, looking at the whole of the water resources. This may be the last time that Parliament considers a Bill of this sort or that a Private Bill of this sort comes before the House, because the Water Resources Bill, I can tell my right hon. Friend, is doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do.

The hon. Member for Aberavon, like myself, sat on that Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill during its long and tedious Committee stage and he well knows that Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill is exactly the same, by a remarkable coincidence, as Clause 79 of the Bill now before the House. Incidentally, my hon. Friend did not raise any objection to that other Clause. 79. I am rather surprised that he is now supporting Amendments to this Bill and objecting to this provision here for the Midlands and Birmingham when less than three weeks ago in Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill he did not object to exactly the same Clause.

Mr. Thorpe

We are not objecting to the Clause.

Mr. Howell

Hon. Members are objecting to this Clause 79. I am sorry that the Liberal Party is getting disturbed, but what they are objecting to at the moment is Clause 79 as it is drawn, and they are attempting to amend it.

I am just saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and myself sat in Standing Committee upstairs less than three weeks ago and passed a Clause for the whole water industry of this country, a Clause in terms identical with those of this one, and it would be absolutely ludicrous, in my view—and this is why I disagree with these Amendments, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of noise about which I have some sympathy with hon. Members—for this House, having agreed to a provision for the whole of the water resources of this country, now to say that that provision will apply to everybody except the promoters of this Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Will my hon. Friend let me put this point to him very seriously? He will realise that we all have an interest in this. My county will be affected shortly. Do I understand that he is putting forward the view that if local feelings about a particular aspect of this problem are expressed upon a new Bill we ought to object to that?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Howell

Not at all. I want the position to be carried to the point of Parliamentary logic. I say that it is illogical of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon not to object to Clause 79 of a Bill which affects the water resources of the country as a whole and then to object to Clause 79 of this Bill. That is the only point I wish to make, and I shall not carry the argument any further.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly pertinently raised the question of local objections. I come back to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Two of the promotors of the Bill are the Montgomeryshire County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board, and they have agreed to it. I do not suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery does not understand local feeling—he obviously does—but surely his own local authority, is well seized of public feeling on this matter? Has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made any representations either to the Montgomeryshire County Council or to the Montgomeryshire Water Board in connection with these Amendments? I ask that because they had no idea that they were to be tabled until they appeared on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Hooson

It was the members of that authority who informed us that they accepted the Amendments.

Mr. Howell

This is a complicated Bill containing 90 Clauses. It took a great deal of time to prepare, and it received a good deal of local publicity. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had every opportunity, at town meetings and town polls, to express his objections to this Clause, but he has never done so. He has waited until this late Parliamentary stage to put forward his objections. I am not suggesting that he ought not to have made his objections known, but if any other hon. Member had objections to a Bill, I feel certain that he would have made them known before the Bill reached this stage. His objections would certainly have been made at a much earlier stage if he was acting in co-operation with his local authority, and this again shows the unreasonableness of objections being made at this stage of our proceedings.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, I think that it is blessed to be able to stand and stare. As W. H. Davies asked What is this life if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare? But life these days is different from what it was when W. H. Davies wrote that poem. There are many people in sedentary occupations, clerical workers and so on, who, during their leisure hours, like to pursue an active sport.

Mr. J. Griffiths

There are plenty of other places for that.

Mr. Howell

The whole discussion is about a proposal to give this authority power to make byelaws. The promoting authorities have not said that they will allow motor-boating or water-ski-ing. What the objectors are doing is taking a pessimistic view of the future of the motor-boat industry in this country. I agree that motor boats make a lot of noise, but at some time in the future manufacturers might be able to produce a more silent engine. It would then be ludricrous to prevent them enjoying motor-boating simply because, when this Measure was going through the House, nothing was said about noise.

There is nothing more that I want to say about these two Amendments. [Hon. Members:"Hear, hear."] I gather that hon. Members have not taken very kindly to my speech. That shows that it is reasonable and pertinent, and the sort of speech to which the House ought to listen. I shall have a word to say about the other Amendment later.

I am opposed to these Amendments because of the unreasonable way in which they have been put forward. There is no evidence that the local authorities want them. Parliament has enacted the Great Ouse Act, and a Standing Committee has dealt with the Water Resources Bill. No objection was raised to similar provisions in these two Measures, and I cannot understand why the promoters of this Bill have singled out Birmingham, Coventry and the rest of the Midlands for this treatment.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) mentioned me several times in the course of his most interesting speech. I am sure that his speech will not endear him to the Welsh people. In view of the co-operation which the County of Montgomery has given in the preparation of this Bill, it is rather sad that a Member representing the City of Birmingham, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the Bill, has sought to make a speech of this nature. Strong feelings are held in Wales on these issues; feelings about which my hon. Friend knows very little. My hon. Friend expressed views which he no doubt holds sincerely, but in view of the views held by local people about our most valuable asset, our water resources, it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend made the speech that he did.

What are the objections to these Amendments? First, it is said that those Members who put their names to them were unreasonable in tabling them at this stage of the Bill's progress. Surely it is open to hon. Members to take whatever course they think fit at any stage of any Bill? That is what we are here for and nothing that my hon. Friend can say will stop hon. Members exercising their constitutional rights. If the Amendments were not in order they would not have been accepted by the Table, and it is therefore unreasonable of my hon. Friend to object to the action taken by us.

The other point made by my hon. Friend was that I said nothing about Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill when it was being discussed in Committee. I agree that that Bill does many of the things which we want to do, but it does not contain a Clause to set up a Welsh water board. I would be out of order if I were to advance arguments setting out the many advantages that would accrue to Wales if such a board were set up, but the Minister has promised to look at this matter again, and, if I understand the position aright, to bring forward some proposals on Report.

The comparison which my hon. Friend seeks to make between my silence on Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill and what I have said about this Bill is rather ridiculous. My hon. Friend has obviously not read Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, because there is nothing in it about motor-boating and water ski-ing. He sought to make the point that Clause 79 of that Bill was on all fours with the Clause under consideration. It may be due to old age, but my hon. Friend's memory does not appear to be very good, and I hope that he will refresh it before this discussion is concluded. If he reads Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, he will see quite clearly that it is not on all fours with the matter we are discussing.

In the Clause in the Water Resources Bill there is a general provision to permit use by members of the public for the purposes of any form of recreation which the river authority considers appropriate. That is a general provision and this Bill goes on to deal with a particular. While one may be silent about a general provision in one Bill, one's course of action may be entirely different in dealing with a particular provision in another Bill.

We are here considering water ski-ing and motor-boating in the context of the Clywedog Valley, and it is the duty of hon. Members to consider forms of recreation which are not mentioned by name in a general provision in another Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was quite wrong when he said that as I had been silent about a general provision in another Bill I should therefore be debarred, ipso facto, from discussing a particular provision in the Bill.

The third matter is this. From his opening remarks, it seemed that my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was speaking on behalf of himself and the promoters. He sought to make the point that the promoters were now taking a neutral stand and that their original agreement, in which they had signified their intention to those of us who had put their names to this Amendment, no longer held good. The letter which I and other hon. Members received was on these lines: We are instructed to inform you that the Committee of the Promoters of the Bill this morning considered the Amendments standing in your name to be moved on consideration. The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments subject to you and the other Members who put their names to the Amendments refraining from further opposition to the Bill. The latter part of that proposal has been held to be a prima facie breach of Privilege, and that would therefore fall and would leave the words merely as: The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments. Those of us who have put down these Amendments have not received any suggestion from the promoters, as far as I know, of their withdrawing from this position, and, so far as I know, the promoters are still prepared to agree to these Amendments.

I ask hon. Members seriously to consider the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). My right hon. Friend spoke about noise. We are dealing with a most beautiful valley which so far has not suffered from what only last week was described as the hazard of noise, a hazard to health in particular. I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maid stone)

I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. In the original Clause 79 the Bill contains clear provisions to enable the Authority to control water ski-ing and motor-boating so closely that they never need be a nuisance to local people. Every hon. Member appreciated the pleasant and lyrical way in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke about his own home area. We appreciate the beauty which he described to us, but the fact remains that he makes a grave error when he says that he is not concerned with precedent. This is what alarms me, because it is well known that promoters of Private Bills always look at the last relevant Bill and take it—I will not say word for word—in large slices.

If there should be a similar Bill—and I say similar and not identical because I am well aware that, as a result of the Water Resources Bill, there will never again be a Bill identical with this—dealing with kindred purposes and the promoters of that Bill observe that the House of Commons does not like water ski-ing in this or that area, undesirable Amendments will be written into that future Bill.

I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) rightly pointed out, the British motor boat industry is making great advances with improvements in silencing and efficiency. There are many industrial and office workers who want to enjoy open spaces and if, inadvertently as a result of these Amendments, there was some future restriction on water ski-ing elsewhere, which is what I fear, a grave disservice would be done to the cause of leisure.

Mr. Hooson

Is not the hon. Member aware that the House of Lords in Committee has already amended Clause 33 and radically changed its provisions, provisions which obtained in the Great Ouse Act?

Mr. Wells

That may well be, but I am concerned not with Clause 33 but with the Amendments to Clause 79. When promoters of Private Bills want to provide a similar Measure in future, they look at the last relevant Bill, and this will be that last relevant Bill. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment, bearing in mind the fundamental fact that under subsection (1) the Authority will have to have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of the water, that under subsection (6) it will have power to make byelaws regulating sailing and motor boating and so on, and that under paragraph (iii) of subsection (6,a) it will be able to forbid the passing into the water of any injurious matter, whether solid or fluid. The Authority will have sufficient power, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendments.

Mr. Roderic Bowen (Cardigan)

I support the Amendments. Several hon. Members have spent a considerable time discussing precedent and procedure, but in deciding whether to accept the Amendments our prime consideration should be their merit, particularly in relation to the Bill as a whole.

When the Bill is implemented, there will be created in this valley a delightful artificial lake in beautiful and peaceful surroundings. There is no doubt that the number of people who will visit and enjoy those surroundings will be substantially increased. Therefore we should be particularly careful that nothing is done to detract from the pleasure and enjoyment of the people who live in the area and those who visit it.

The Amendments are directed towards dealing with noise. The main interest of the hon. Member for Maids-tone (Mr. J. Wells)—I make no quarrel about it—is that the motor boat industry should not have its development hindered by restrictions of this kind. If we are balancing the perfectly genuine honourable interests of the motor boat industry with the question of the amenity of a valley, in these circumstances it is quite clear where our duty lies.

Mr. J. Wells

I am afraid the hon. and learned Member has put some words into my mouth. I said specifically that I was concerned about the pleasure of many people and mentioned the motor boat industry only in passing.

Mr. Bowen

I am concerned with the pleasure of people, both those who live in the Clywedog area and those who visit it. The Bill provides for recreational facilities in the area. There are plenty of recreational facilities which could be provided without making noise which will interfere with the pleasure of others. I should have thought that in this respect the hon. Member for Small Heath would be doing great disservice not only to the population of Clywedog but to his constituents who will be visiting the area. In the last few days a report has been presented to Parliament by a committee which has been considering the problem of noise. Two paragraphs in that Report might well have been written with these Amendments in mind.

Mr. Denis Howell

I do not want to be tendentious or carry this argument too far, but would the hon. and learned Member deal with this question? If we are to have noise in our society, is it not better to have it in remote places where no one lives than in large towns?

Mr. Bowen

There are places where people can go and expect to find noise there, but there still remain places to which people can go in order to have peace. One of the objects of these Amendments is to see that there shall still be places in that category.

I was referring to the very valuable Report we have just received. The two paragraphs in it which I have in mind are headed, very appropriately,"Noise from Boats" and"Noise in the Country". Under the heading"Noise from Boats" the Report says: In the last few years noise from motor-boats on rivers, lakes and the sea has begun to cause complaint and in some areas to become a nuisance. With the growing popularity of motor-boating and water-ski-ing the nuisance is likely to become worse and more widespread unless preventive measures are taken. It is with that sentiment in mind that I support these Amendments. Under"Noise in the Country", the Report says: There is no doubt that the countryside is getting noisier", The hon. Member for Small Heath apparently thinks that that can be a pleasing development. The paragraph goes on to say: We have noted in Chapter XI the greater number of townspeople who are now able to visit and find their recreation in the countryside tends to increase the noise there. We hope that in such places as National Parks and National Trust properties endeavours will be made to preserve, or create, havens of quiet where those who wish to can escape from noise for a time. Those who oppose these Amendments are those who want to destroy—to use the phrase used in the Report—"havens of quiet". The paragraph goes on to say: In fact most of the noises that occur in towns also occur in the country, but to different degrees, I believe this sentence is of importance: It must be remembered, however, that the same noise may give rise to greater annoyance in the country on account of the lower background noise, and for the same reason a lesser noise may still cause significant annoyance. From the purely noise angle these Amendments have very considerable merit. It may well be that these matters have been raised at a late stage, but at whatever stage they have been raised they have great merit in them, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Bar)

I intervene for only a few seconds to get one or two things on the record corrected.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who moved the Amendment, referred to a petition signed by a number of grammar school boys in Birmingham. He should have made perfectly clear that that petition was not supporting these Amendments or making any reference to these Amendments, but was opposing the Bill. It would have been rather infra dig if any of the grammar school boys had the privilege of going camping in this beautiful part of Wales—I accept all that the hon. and learned Member said about it—but that right was denied to the next generation. I do not think it was quite fair for the hon. and learned Member to say that he had the support of these grammar school boys.

I was surprised to find that every one of the four hon. Members who have supported this Amendment, and three are in the legal fraternity, used an argument which was contrary to what is followed in that profession, the use of precedents. After all, this House works on precedents.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I am not a learned Member.

Mr. Howell

I excluded my right hon. Friend when I referred to learned Members. They put me in mind of so many hon. Members opposite who, when we were discussing another Bill, dealing with transport, supported it so long as it would not close branch lines in their areas. Apparently we can have a Water Resources Bill dealing with the whole of Britain, but hon. Members do not want it to apply to their own particular areas.

I shall in future have to regard my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) as the hon. Member for Wales because he said that he was speaking for the people of Wales. He did not, however, tell us of anyone in Aberavon who supported this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Mont- gomery did not tell us that any petition had been got up by anyone objecting to this point in the Bill. I do not know for whom he was speaking. They have not revealed themselves and neither of the hon. Members has revealed that to us.

Is it suggested that Birmingham people would take motor boats to this area? Is it suggested that people from Coventry will lead a contingent of motor boats there? The only people who would use motor boats if that were allowed—and the Bill would merely give permission for motor boats—would be Montgomeryshire people. If there is any objection it cannot be against the people in my constituency nor those in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) or Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

The hon. and learned Member should be clear about this. He would be stopping his own people doing these things, but he says that they do not want to do them. I apologise to my right hon. Friend in that I have difficulty in pronouncing Clywedog—

Mr. J. Griffiths

My hon. Friend does it very well.

Mr. Howell

The hon. and learned Member for Montomery said that very few people knew Clywedog or even how to get there and that the roads were very narrow. All that will change. In the Derbyshire district there is the Lady Bower Dam, a beautiful place which people did not know about some time ago, but now it has become known one cannot get near it for motor cars. If this is so beautiful—and I am sure that it must be—it will become not only a beauty spot but a place to which thousands of Welsh people will go in their motor cars. I suggest that from some areas they will even go out picnicking to this beautiful spot—which will be far worse than motor boats.

Mr. J. Griffiths

On a point of order. Are we to have any advice from the Government?

8.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I do not think that I can help the House much on this matter because the Government do not take a very strong view either way.

I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that this is not directly comparable with the Great Ouse Water Act. In that Act this Clause was put in at a fairly late stage and the Government representative before the Committee made a plea that it should not be regarded as a precedent for all future reservoirs. There is, on the other hand, this other difference. I understand that there is no direct abstraction at all from the Great Ouse reservoir, whereas there will be direct abstraction here for the Montgomeryshire Water Board.

I must, however, give some support to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr.Denis Howell) because it is relevant to remember that we have been considering the Water Resources Bill and, if anything the Government have been pressed to go rather further to allow discretion in these matters than was originally written into the Bill. In that Bill the discretion is left with the river authorities. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) said, this is the crux; we are not dealing with a decision whether we shall have motor boats on this lake, for we are asked either definitely not to have them or to give discretion.

Mr. Bowen

This is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide that question.

Mr. Corfield

It is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide to give a complete bar against these operations in this case.

The Water Resources Bill contains provisions by which river authorities may in the future take over reservoirs in their area. I will not forecast the fate of this reservoir, but it is the sort of reservoir which might well come under an Order in the future, and in that event there would be public inquiries and the hearing of objections. If that is so, it seems a little illogical to have a provision written in which would not apply to other reservoirs, many of which are in Wales and are in beautiful valleys.

On balance, therefore, the sensible thing, I think, is to leave it to the discretion of the Authority, but the Government do not take a strong line. I am always influenced by the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Llanelly and by the local patriotism—I come from just over the Border and I understand it well; but I believe that this is sound advice.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 70.

Division No. 159.] AYES [8.5 p.m.
Abse, Leo Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Probert, Arthur
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Randall, Harry
Barnett, Guy Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Bence, Cyril Hamilton, William (West Fife) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Harper, Joseph Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Biffen, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Robson Brown, Sir William
Blyton, William Hayman, F. H. Shepherd, William
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Boyden, James Hooson, H. E. Snow, Julian
Brockway, A. Fenner Hoy, James H. Spriggs, Leslie
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Symonds, J. B.
Carmichael, Neil Hunter, A. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Cooke, Robert Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Thorpe, Jeremy
Darling, George Kelley, Richard Wade, Donald
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kenyon, Clifford Warbey, William
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lipton, Marcus White, Mrs. Elrene
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McBride, N. Wilkins, W. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mellish, R. J. Willey, Frederick
Dempsey, James Milne, Edward Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Dodds, Norman Mitchison, G. R. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Evans, Albert Morgan, William Woollam, John
Farey-Jones, F. W. Moyle, Arthur
Finch, Harold O'Malley, B. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galpern, Sir Myer Pargiter, G. A. Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.
Greenwood, Anthony Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
NOES
Barlow, Sir John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) MacColl, James
Barter, John Glover, Sir Douglas Marshall, Sir Douglas
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Grant-Ferris, R. Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Green, Alan Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Brooman-White, R. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pitt, Dame Edith
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Herbison, Miss Margaret Pott, Percivall
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hiley, Joseph Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hirst, Geoffrey Rankin, John
Burden, F. A. Hocking, Philip N. Seymour, Leslie
Butcher, Sir Herbert Holland, Philip Shaw, M.
Cary, Sir Robert Hollingworth, John Sorensen, R. W.
Cliffe, Michael Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Swain, Thomas
Crossman, R. H. S. Hughes-Young, Michael Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Deer, George Jeger, George Temple, John M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Turner, Colin
Duthie, Sir William King, Dr. Horace Ward, Dame Irene
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Kitson, Timothy Wells, John (Maidstone)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lagden, Godfrey Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lilley, F. J. P.
Fisher, Nigel McAdden, Sir Stephen TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.
Mr. Hooson

I beg to move, in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", to insert: but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir". I propose to add these words to Clause 79(3), which at the moment reads as follows: The Authority may demand and take such reasonable charges as they think fit from any person using any facilities provided under this section or using the reservoir for the purposes of recreation. As hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies will appreciate, Birmingham will draw millions of gallons of water from this reservoir every day.

Mr. Denis Howell

And it will pay for it.

Mr. Hooson

That is just the point. It will not pay for it. The local inhabitants will lose a beautiful valley. They will also lose other things. The valley has running through it a very good little trout stream called the Clywedog, in which many generations of local inhabitants have fished by special arrangement with the farmers owning the land. The local inhabitants will lose this facility.

I happen to come from an area, referred to by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), which is suffering from depopulation and where the wages are very much lower than those earned in the Birmingham area. When a reservoir of this kind is built, thus creating an attraction drawing people to the

area, prices will inevitably be driven up. What are reasonable prices for people coming on trips from the Birmingham area may be very different from what are reasonable prices for local inhabitants.

8.15 p.m.

I am concerned about the rights of people who have lived in the area for generations. The local angling associations at present enjoy fishing facilities on the river. They will lose these. I do not doubt for a moment that the fishing facilities on the reservoirs will be very much poorer. There is a matter of great principle here. It is all very well for great authorities to come and prospect for water in Wales and say,"We need water for the industries in our growing towns", In this case the authorities concerned had the greatest co-operation from the Montgomery County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board. This matter has been treated on a more adult level than other proposals of this kind in recent years in Wales. There has been far greater co-operation than in previous Measures of this kind. It is important that the local inhabitants should not be entirely forgotten in a Measure of this type. After all, it is their countryside. They have lived there and they have certain rights in respect of it.

My hon. Friends and I have deliberately drafted the Amendment in not very specific terms, because we agree that the joint authority should have a certain discretion here as to where to draw the line as to who are local inhabitants. The Amendment charges the authority with the duty to— give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservor". For example, in the Elan Reservoir in Radnorshire, which has been run by Birmingham for many years, the local inhabitants are given special facilities and are charged special prices for fishing. This should obtain also in the Clywedog Reservoir in respect of fishing, boating, sailing, and so on.

Mr. Denis Howell

This is perhaps the vaguest and most irresponsible Amendment ever put before the House. I understand what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is seeking to do, but it is very obvious that he has not given this matter mature consideration, because we are asked to accept the proposition that in the recreational facilities provided at this waterworks the local inhabitants should receive special consideration in the matter of charges. The corollary to that is that there must be a definition of what a local inhabitant is. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who understands the law far better than I do, as he has already told the House, should have tabled an Amendment to the interpretation Clause stating beyond doubt what a local inhabitant is. Is it a member of the parish? Is it a member of the county council area? Is it a member of the Montgomery constituency? We do not know what a local inhabitant is. We do not even know how long a local inhabitant has to be local before he is an inhabitant. If I go camping for a fortnight, do I become a local inhabitant for the purposes of trout fishing or any of the other pleasant pastimes under consideration?

The hon. and learned Gentleman also told us that this was a provision carried out in the Claerwen Valley district. I am sorry to have to say to him that it is not so.

Mr. Hooson

I did not say that it was a provision. I said that in fact facilities were provided.

Mr. Howell

My information is that no special facilities are provided for local inhabitants in the Claerwen and Elan Valleys, nor should they be. If this argument were carried further, what would happen to the economy of the country? Should the local inhabitants of Birmingham, because of their great contribution to industry in the motor trade, be granted special privileges as to the prices they pay for motor cars, as compared with the prices paid by people living in other parts of the country?

Mr. Bowen

This is not a question of special facilities. This is a modicum of compensation for the local inhabitants for something which has been taken from them.

Mr. Howell

Where does that argument end? Every agricultural worker could claim, on that argument, that he should be charged less for the products he provides. In any case, on that argument, who is to be the arbiter?

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—

Mr. Howell

I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am inclined not to do so in view of the business which will come before the House when we have dealt with the Amendment. However, since my hon. Friend lived and worked in Birmingham I will allow him to intervene.

Mr. Bence

My hon. Friend referred to workers in the motor industry not enjoying privileges. As he knows, I worked in that industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that for several products, from washing machines and stainless steel sinks to motor cars, I was able to get a reduced price.

Mr. Howell

That may be true of some firms, but it is by no means the universal practice in the industry. Even if my hon. Friend did get such a"perk", I am sure that he would not think of promoting it as a piece of legislation, which is what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is trying to do.

Anyone considering this matter in a fair-minded way will agree that the Amendment would be unworkable. The authority which would have to determine its operation would be placed in an intolerable position, and Parliament should not allow that to happen. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will shed a little more light on this subject than he could on the previous Amendment.

Mr. T. W. Jones (Merioneth)

Half-a-dozen speeches of the type just delivered by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) would soon urge me to become a Welsh Nationalist and to say to the people of Birmingham, with them,"Find your water in England and leave us in peace". The hon. Member should have said,"We are grateful to the people of Wales in general, and of Montgomeryshire in particular, for having given us all this assistance to make this reservoir possible".

The people of Birmingham will be spending £4½ million on the construction of this reservoir in Montgomeryshire. I hope that they realise that £4½ million cannot buy one thing—good will. The people of Liverpool appreciated this when they took over the Tryweryn Valley and, eventually, were wise enough to do everything in their power to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the area. Nothing will help more to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the Clywedog Valley than to accept the Amendment, for it is obviously reasonable.

Mr. Denis Howell

The hon. Member is surely not suggesting that his constituents and the people of Wales can have their good will bought by giving them advantages of a financial character. Would that not be totally unworthy?

Mr. Jones

I never suggested that good will could be bought at any price or in any way, certainly not financially. However, it can be secured. Acceptance of the Amendment would show that the people of the area are being considered, along with the construction of the new reservoir. Realising that a subject of considerable importance has yet to be debated, I will do no more than appeal to hon. Members to support the Amendment.

Mr. Bence

It might be helpful if I, as a Welshman who left Wales to work in Birmingham, expressed my point of view. I discovered when I got to Birmingham, being a keen angler—and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) knows this to be so—that at weekends I was able to go into the Welsh hills and to fish in the Welsh rivers.

I also discovered that many Birmingham angling clubs and associations were in the habit of buying fishing rights for their clubs. I have, therefore, considerable sympathy with those who support the Amendment. Had I remained in a Welsh valley, instead of being able to fish in Wales at the times when I left Birmingham to do so—because, for instance, certain angling clubs owned fishing rights there—I might not have been able to enjoy those fishing facilities. As a Welshman working in Birmingham I could go back to fish in Wales in water that had been bought by a Birmingham club. A Welshman who stayed in Wales might not have been in this fortunate position.

For these reasons I have considerable sympathy with the local inhabitants who have decided to remain and live in Wales. In any case, the argument about what is a local inhabitant is simply explained. A local inhabitant is someone who lives in the area of the reservoir.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Is such a person an inhabitant of the local?

Mr. Bence

It depends upon which local one is discussiing. I have not been the usual or frequent occupant of the sort of local I think the hon. Member has in mind. A part of my constituency happens to be dry and I want to keep it that way. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to institutions in which is consumed whisky, beer and the like. I am talking about the local inhabitants of the areas in the vicinity of the reservoir; people who have enjoyed certain fishing facilities in the streams that will now become a reservoir.

In permitting Birmingham to convert this valley into a reservoir it is only right that Parliament should ensure that the local inhabitants are not denied the amenities provided by the reservoir—amenities that may be provided for citizens of Birmingham who have left Wales but not for citizens of Wales.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Surely the great advantage that Montgomeryshire will get from this reservoir, which we are told is to cost £4½ million, is a hugely increased rateable value. Radnorshire gets about 60 per cent. of its rates from the Birmingham Corporation because of the Elan Valley reservoir. Montgomeryshire, while I do not think it will get 60 per cent., will get a considerable addition to its rateable value in a county where that is much needed.

Mr. Bowen

Will it really help the rates?

Mr. Ede

I would advise my hon. and learned Friend to consult his hon. Friends who represent Radnorshire about the advantage, from the municipal point of view, of being able to extract so much of their rates from the Corporation of Birmingham on one rate demand note.

Mr. Corfield

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in saying that hon. Members would not be wise to accept an Amendment of this sort. As the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) said—if we are to use this as an operation for securing good will—the very essence of the operation by Liverpool in the Tryweryn Valley and of

what has happened in the Elan Valley is that it was done voluntarily and was not written into a Bill.

8.30 p.m.

If we set a precedent here, we may be starting off on a very dangerous path. I cannot for the life of me see how we could operate this provision without a definition of what is a local inhabitant, without defining how long someone has to be resident in the district before qualifying for these benefits, what the district comprises, and so on. I would remind hon. Members that Clause 33(1) makes it clear that the intention is that the compensation shall be based on every form of loss—including, presumably, these fishing rights. Clause 33 is much wider than the general legislation and, as far as I know, the only precedent is in the Liverpool Corporation Act. I think that it would be wrong to write this provision into the Bill, and get into difficulties over precedents in the future.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 59.

Division No. 160.] AYES [8.31 p.m.
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Probert, Arthur
Barnett, Guy Hamilton, William (West Fife) Rankin, John
Bence, Cyril Hannan, William Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Biffen, John Harper, Joseph Robertson, John (Paisley)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigam) Hayman, F. H. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Boyden, James Hill, J. (Midlothian) Snow, Julian
Brockway, A. Fenner Hooson, H. E. Sorensen, R. W.
Cliffe, Michael Hunter, A. E. Symonds, J. B.
Cooke, Robert Jones, Dan (Burnley) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Critchley, Julian Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kelley, Richard Thornton, Ernest
Davies, Harold (Leek) Kenyon, Clifford Thorpe, Jeremy
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Wade, Donald
Deer, George Lipton, Marcus Warbey, William
Dempsey, James McKay, John (Wallsend) Wilkins, W. A.
Dodds, Norman Markham, Major Sir Frank Willey, Frederick
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Morgan, William Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Finch, Harold Moyle, Arthur Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Galpern, Sir Myer Pargiter, G. A. Woollam, John
Greenwood, Anthony Parker, John
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Pavitt, Laurence TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.
NOES
Barlow, Sir John Corfield, F. V. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Coulson, Michael Harris, Frederic (Groydon, N.W.)
Bell, Ronald Crossman, R. H. S. Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Dance, James Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Digby, Simon Wingfield Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf''d)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bourne-Arton, A. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hiley, Joseph
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hocking, Philip N.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Farr, John Hollingworth, John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Burden, F. A. Gammans, Lady Hughes-Young, Michael
Butcher, Sir Herbert Glover, Sir Douglas Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
King, Dr. Horace Page, Graham (Crosby) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Kitson, Timothy Pitt, Dame Edith Tomney, Frank
Lagden, Godfrey Pott, Percivall Turner, Colin
Lilley, F. J. P. Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Ward, Dame Irene
McAdden, Sir Stephen Pym, Francis Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
MacArthur, Ian Seymour, Leslie
MacColl, James Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Marshall, Sir Douglas Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

Bill to be read the Third time.

Forward to