HC Deb 30 July 1963 vol 682 cc375-401

10.20 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order 1963 (S.I,, 1963, No. 1169), dated 1st July, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be annulled. It might be as well to recall the purpose for which the White Fish Authority was set up. In intimating its setting up to the House in July, 1950, Mr. Attlee, then Prime Minister, said: The difficulties of the white fish industry are basic, complex, and of long standing. There is, therefore, no simple solution to them. The view has often been expressed in this House that their difficulties are not likely to be overcome by the industry itself. The Government agree with this view and have decided to promote legislation to set up an Authority with adequate powers to regulate, re-organise and. develop the white fish industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 237.] The powers of the Authority were clearly laid down. They are set out in Section 1 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. This provides that the Authority …shall have the functions of reorganising, developing and regulating the white fish industry, and of keeping generally under review matters relating to that industry… It goes on further to say that in addition to all that it must provide not only for the industry itself but for the consumer public.

When we consider this Order tonight we have to ask ourselves whether the Authority has carried out the programme laid down for it at its inception. If so, it ought to be paid for. If not, we are entitled to reject the Order. Let us consider some of the expenditure entailed in this administration. One gathers from reading the Authority's Report that numerically it is becoming top-heavy, because apparently salaries over the past eight years have trebled. One could well understand that this item of the Authority's expenditure would show an increase, but one cannot believe that salaries as such have gone up by three times in eight years. We therefore want to know whether there has been a sub- stantial increase in the manpower and in the staff.

I find from the Authority's accounts that it is paying out of its income rather more than £17,000 for rent and rates for the premises which it occupies in London. It seems to me to be an exorbitant sum to pay for the purposes of the Authority. The Government have declared that there are far too many of these types of organisation insisting upon being situated in central London. There would be an opportunity to make a substantial reduction in expenditure and an opportunity to serve the economic purposes of the country better if the Authority were moved outside London altogether. What good reason is there for the Authority to be situated in London? One could well understand it if the Authority were in Grimsby or Aberdeen.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

Would the hon. Member not agree that if the Authority were concentrated in one of the ports this would cause a great deal of feeling in the other ports?

Mr. Hoy

I am certain that it would not. I do not think that because the Authority was situated in a port the industry would regard that as a situation which could be used to bring undue influence to bear on behalf of one section of the industry. In any event, whatever else may be said about it, the Authority is certainly completely apart from the whole of the industry by being situated where it now is, and I see no good reason for it. The British Trawlers Federation, whose views I express as well as those of other sections of the industry, has felt for some time that over the past years the main function of the White Fish Authority has been to supervise the grants and loans schemes. One does not seek to belittle this part of the Authority's work, but this is not the sole function for which the Authority was established. Indeed, when one remembers that the last Report of the White Fish Authority showed that the industry as a whole had been unable to meet its commitments, its interest payments on loans and its repayments of grants to the extent of £1¼ million last year, one can see how bad the position of the industry is.

It is against this background that we are faced with the present demand. It looks simple to state on the Order Paper that it is proposed to increase the levy on the industry from ½d. to 1d. per stone. At first glance that does not appear to be very much, but it amounts to £268,000 in a year. Let us look at the background of the Scottish industry, for example. Even a fortnight ago when we were discussing the grants for the ensuing year the Secretary of State for Scotland admitted that the Scottish middle-water trawling fleet had made considerable losses over the past year—in fact, so much so that it was quite unable to make its grant and loan repayments to the White Fish Authority, and this applied throughout the country.

On top of that, we were then enacting the new grants for the coming year which would provide a cut of £700 to £800 per annum to each middle-water trawler in Scotland, and, for that matter, in England as well. In view of that situation, we look with some apprehension upon the present proposal.

In spite of the losses and the subsequent cuts in the subsidies which will ensue in the year that lies ahead, the White Fish Authority says, "Despite all that, and despite the fact that we agree that you are in this position, we want another £268,000 out of your pocket." What does this mean to the different sections of the fleet? To the distant-water fleet—and this affects the ports of Grimsby and Hull in particular—it means an additional levy of £130,000 per annum. In Scotland, which is not affected to anything like the same extent because the fleet is not a distant-water fleet, it will mean an additional £4,000. But in the near and middle-water fleets it will mean in England and Wales an additional £31,000, and in Scotland a similar sum. To the inshore fleet, which is of particular importance in certain little areas in Scotland, it will cost an additional £9,000 to £10,000 in England and Wales, and an additional £25,500 in levies on the Scottish inshore fleet.

The Government are asking for a substantial sum. One would not object if included in these proposals was a proposal to do something for the industry. But merely to impose these cuts in subsidies and then to ask for this additional levy in no way improves the standing of the industry. When we were discussing the cuts in the grants, a fortnight ago I said: …these subsidies will not do what the White Fish Authority wants to do—they will not give us better boats, newer techniques, better quality or better marketing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 437.] It was for these reasons that the White Fish Authority was established. So far the Authority has produced no proposals that will do any of these things. I regret that just when the chairman has been changed one should have to say these things. We welcome the new chairman and hope he will do a good job of work, but at least what we ought to have had from him—at any rate from the Authority—were the things the Authority was set up to do. So far, in all these years, it has failed to carry them out. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a plain statement of fact.

It is just not right for the Authority to come to this House and ask for another £250,000 from the industry, because every single penny of it has to be produced by the industry itself. It has to come from the cod end; the consumer will have to pay. We in this House have to ask whether we should do this or not. My view is that I should like the Authority to do the things it was set up to do, and which I think it has failed to do so far, and because it has failed to do them because of the condition the fishing industry is in at present, I think that this time of all times is not the correct time to ask the industry to produce another £250,000.

It is because of that that I shall ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby tonight to show our opposition to this proposal.

10.31 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

At a time when almost every producing organisation is realising that it needs to spend more attention on marketing and presentation, I think it is a good thing that we should be supporting the White Fish Authority in increasing this levy. I, as representing a constituency which is particularly interested in the inshore fishing industry, realise that about one-tenth of this amount will come from that section in Scotland. Basically, surely, this is what we need to do, because it has been shown over past years that the decrease in the profitability of the industry has been due to the fact that the type of fish, the presentation of the fish, the way it is marketed, have been wanting. It is surely only by increasing our research, and by making certain we do properly present what is caught—at very great expense of time and labour in very difficult conditions in wintry seas—that we can ensure a proper return to the fishermen of this country. I think, therefore, that we should support this Order, and I have very much pleasure in doing so.

Mr. John Hall

I should like my hon. Friend to explain in what way the White Fish Authority has used the funds placed at its disposal arising out of levies for the purpose of improving the marketing of fish.

Sir J. Gilmour

It may not have done so as much as it should have done in the past, but this is surely what it is seeking to do, and I think we should support the Authority in that.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft)

I am so sorry that tonight the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is not here, because he is a great expert on these matters, and he is, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) told a Norfolk audience, the next Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, it is a very sad thing that we have not got his presence here tonight—

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Where is the Minister?

Mr. Prior

—particularly as in an earlier Notice on the Paper he was praying against this Order.

It is particularly sad he is not here tonight because the hon. Member for Workington is a great expert on research. He is always asking the Government to carry out more scientific research. Speaking in the debate we had on the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order, he said: I am often accused of being somewhat fanatical about research in agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 395.] I would suggest that he ought to be here tonight to show how fanatical he is about research in fishing as well, because that is what this levy is about.

I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) would have made just as good a speech, and probably a rather better speech, if he had been speaking in favour of the levy. Perhaps it is that the Opposition feel that this is a good opportunity to have one last Division before we break up for the Summer Recess, and, therefore, they are choosing tonight as a good opportunity to oppose this fresh levy rather in the same way as they would oppose anything else which was raised at this time of night just before the Recess.

I hope that the fishing industry will not get the wrong idea from this. The hon. Member for Leith knows just as well as we know on this side of the House that if the White Fish Authority is to survive and do the job it has always been supposed to do, and which we think it will do now under the new chairman, it has to have the extra money. It has a very important job to do. It is true to say that nearly every branch of the fishing industry has at one time or another opposed an increase in levy, but that is in no way unnatural. The same thing happened with the Pig Industry Development Authority; nearly all the farming community at one time or another opposed an increase of levy there.

I am rather surprised that there have not been greater representations made by the British Trawlers Federation, the fish merchants association or other associations against the introduction of the levy. In fact, the representations made have been only half-hearted. On the whole, the fishing industry realises that this money really is necessary to the Authority if it is to do its job properly.

Mr. Hoy

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—absolutely wrong—and what is more, he is saying this when he knows it to be untrue. He must know that every association was asked to make representations—the Minister will not seek to deny it—and protest most vehemently against the proposal—every section of the industry, fishing or trading.

Mr. Prior

It is interesting that the fishing industry has made very few representations to me about it, and I cannot help feeling that if it had felt very strongly on the matter that is exactly what it would have done. I am certain that it would have chased me from morning to night if it had felt all that strongly about it. Naturally, it would make representations against it, but it is the very lack of strength of the protestations which has convinced me that the fishing industry is not rigidly opposed to the introduction of the levy. If it is to spend, as one understands, the extra £250,000 or £300,000 on research, no one would deny that research is necessary. I cannot believe that even the Opposition would deny that this money ought to be spent on research. Is it not fair that the new chairman should have a chance to show exactly what he can do?

Paragraph 140 of the Report mentions five projects which the Authority is considering and which it is stated are capable of solution within a year. These projects are; engineering development concerned with ship design, propulsion and machinery; processing, handling and preservation; development of improved fish catching techniques; development of improved fish finding techniques; and utilisation of alternative resources, including artificially reared stocks. All these things are certainly worthy of research, and if it requires £300,000 to do this, I think it is right that that money should be forthcoming. In order to do this it has set up the industrial development unit at Hull. It is anew organisation which has been set up, and it will require the extra amount of money.

I cannot for the life of me see why the Opposition are trying, tonight of all nights, except for the reasons which I have stated, to pray against this Order. I could understand their praying against the Order for the sake of having a discussion on this very important matter. That would be sensible. But to pray against it with the idea of voting against it seems to me to be flying in the face of all that they have said in the past year or two about research and development done by authorities. The Opposition are all in favour of setting up authorities. Under their great new agricultural plan they want to set up commissions to do the work—and authorities and commissions are closely allied. Why tonight have they suddenly developed this dislike of the White Fish Authority so that they do not want it to have the extra money?

I do not believe that this is altogether to do with the White Fish Authority itself. In fact, I am certain that it is not. I hope that the Government will stand firm on this issue and will see that the White Fish Authority gets down to the job which it was set up to do. I do not think that it has done it very well in past years. The Government should see that it makes a big effort, with the extra money which is forthcoming, to put its house in order and to help the fishing industry, which badly needs this help. If it can do this, then the money which is to be provided will be well worthwhile and will do do a good job for the industry.

I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government in the Lobby to reject this Prayer, which is moved not for reasons connected with the fishing industry but for reasons connected with the internal politics of the Labour Party, who tonight at 11 p.m. want a Division on the Prayer so that they can wind up before the Summer Recess with a Division against the Government. I hope that we shall keep the debate going until 11.30 p.m., so that we shall keep from their trains and their beds a few hon. Members who have no interest in the fishing industry at all but who have to stay an extra half-hour to vote against this Order.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland (Grimsby)

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) usually makes a rather intelligent contribution to our debates, but he cannot be said to have made such a contribution tonight. I fail to see why he should be so cynical of the Opposition's motives. Normally he is rather critical and outspoken, but he has made such an obsequious speech towards his own Front Bench that I can only assume that he is a candidate for the leadership of his party.

He said that he had received few complaints from his constituents. Lowestoft is not exactly a major fishing port, but I thought that people there were rather more vocal than he suggests, and certainly in Grimsby, as in other places, I have had extremely angry and harsh comments on the proposals about the White Fish Authority levy. The fact of the matter is that this industry, which is normally disunited, for once is totally united in opposition to this proposal.

It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Lowestoft fundamentally gave his case away. He attacked us for opposing the levy and asked whether we wanted the White Fish Authority to do its job properly. A few minutes later he admitted that it had not done its job properly in the past. If we were to be given a guarantee tonight by the Minister that the Authority would alter its ways in future, we might withdraw our opposition, but the fact is, as the hon. Member said, that the Authority has not done its job properly in the past, and we have no indication, other than the change in chairmanship, that there will be any major change in future.

The hon. Member is inaccurate when he talks about all the additional money being required for research. That is not so. When one begins to look at the figures one finds many other aspects of costs which have gone up proportionately at least as much as the cost of research—if not more.

Our fundamental attitude was accurately expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). We think that there is a job which the White Fish Authority ought to be doing. If it were doing that job we should not grudge a doubling or trebling of the levy. But we are still not satisfied that it has done that job in the past, and is about to do it now, and since we are not satisfied that it is doing the job, it is only right and logical that we should take the attitude which we have taken. We are always being lectured by hon. Members opposite about the importance of scrutinising Government expenditure, and it is therefore right that we should examine these accounts in considerable detail.

I should like to ask a number of specific questions about increases in the White Fish Authority's costs in recent years. First, the question of salaries, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned. These have increased greatly, and the normal reason given is that the increase represents salary improvements. If it does then we are all delighted. We do not want the poor employees of the White Fish Authority to be starved. We want them to be properly paid. But once we look at the salaries in detail we find that from 1953 to 1963 they have gone by from £26,000 to £114,000. This is an increase of four and a half times. I doubt whether the industry has received a proportionate benefit. We should like a detailed reply to that.

Looking at the accounts given in the last Report, we find, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, a very large figure for rents arising from the fact of having an office in the centre of London. I strongly echo my hon. Friend's plea that the Government should consider moving the White Fish Authority out of the centre of London either to the suburbs or to one of the ports. We would be delighted to give the Authority accommodation in Grimsby.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Why not Aberdeen?

Mr. Crosland

Yes, one-fifth to Aberdeen and four-fifths to Grimsby.

Among the Authority's other expenses there has been a startling increase in office expenses during the last year. Why do they suddenly go up? There has been a jump of £2,500 on an expenditure of less than £10,000. Is this increase reflected in an increased benefit to the industry? We should like to know.

Travelling expenses have gone up by nearly a half. Why this jump in the amount of travel? Again, has the industry benefited proportionately? We want to know. Professional fees have gone up by three times. No explanation has been given for these large increases either by the White Fish Authority or by the Government, and we want an explanation.

On the question of publicity—and this has been argued before—my view has always been that an expenditure of £75,000 on advertising and publicity is either too little or too much. It is far too little to sustain a campaign such as is carried out by the milk and beer industries. I do not think that this trivial amount is of any use whatsoever. It should be either zero or £1 million. This half-way house figure seems rather absurd.

Then there is the question of bad debts. There is a large provision for bad debts and it is going to be increased very much in 1963. It is true, as we all know, that certain firms in the industry owe the White Fish Authority very substantial arrears both for interest and capital repayments under the loans scheme. But surely these loans are secured. We know from the Authority's Report that practically the whole of the loans are secured by mortgages on vessels and other assets. The unsecured loans are trivial in amount. Virtually all the loans are secured on mortgage, and in cases where the situation has become critical—again as we know from paragraph 20 of the Report—the Authority has repossessed itself of trawlers built under the loans scheme. If these loans are secured on new trawlers, do we need this large provision in the accounts for bad debts? Again, we should like an explanation of that.

On the doubling of the levy, I agree with what my hon. Friend said, It seems that the wiser course of action would have been, as there is a new chairman, not to have doubled the levy practically on the day that the new chairman takes office but to have given him a year as chairman to take a view of the industry and the functions of the White Fish Authority and then to see if the levy needed doubling.

Apparently the hon. Member for Lowestoft agrees, or, having made his comic speech, he has withdrawn from active participation in the debate.

I now mention some things which the White Fish Authority has not done in the past and which I want to be assured it is to do before we can agree to the levy being doubled. The first thing it has never done and should do is to give strong national leadership to the industry. This is an industry which desperately needs national leadership because it must be about the most divided industry in the country. The trawling part of the industry is, to put it mildly, not on the best of terms with the distributing part. The English part has differences of opinion with the Scottish part. The distant-water fleet has differences of opinion with the near and middle-water fleet and the inshore section is out on a limb with no connection with either of them. The industry has never spoken with a single voice. Far more than most industries it needs a body like the White Fish Authority to provide it with united national leadership.

That is the number one task. I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft that the number two task is beginning to be done on a reasonable scale. That is that the Authority should be a constant pressure group for technical innovation in the industry. The Fleck Committee Report told us, what most of those involved knew already, that this was not technically the most modern and up-to-date of industries; in fact, technically much of the industry is backward. If we look at the amount it spends on research we find that it comes out rather low in the list of British industries.

There is a great need for a public authority like the W.F.A. to act as a constant pressure group for technical innovation and research. The Authority has been doing this in the past, not always successfully. It wasted a lot of time in Grimsby trying to introduce anew scheme for mechanical unloading which every lumper told it would be a wash-out before it started. Still, it deserves credit for trying. If we had had an Authority which was technically well equipped, the industry would not be in the sad state in which it is today. Looking back, I should have thought that it was clear in the fifties that the industry over-invested enormously in conventional trawlers. This over-investment could have been saved by a White Fish Authority really doing its job.

It is a matter of common agreement that the methods of handling fish at docks, such as Grimsby Docks and others, are out-of-date and backward. Everyone knows this, but no serious investigation of what should be done has been carried out. We had the famous three-man commission, which spent about a day and a half in Grimsby. Although some of us may have seen it privately, the report has not been made public.

The last thing which the Authority should do, as I have often said, is to set up an economic research unit. We have had no serious economic study of the British fishing industry. The Fleck Committee, although it had two economists on it, did not produce any serious projection about the future of the industry. There is no economist in the Fisheries Department of the Ministry.

To give one or two examples of the information we must have, we need, first, a general idea of what is likely to happen to the demand for fish. We have many international comparisons of consumption of fish in different countries in the E.E.C. and so on, but we need some sort of study which will give an idea of whether there is much chance of people eating more fish per head in this country. The much debated question of advertising cannot be settled until we know whether or not demand can be substantially increased.

A critical question is, what is the right size for the industry? We need an economic research unit in the Authority which has information about trends in consumption and information about fishing fleets of all the other Western countries, trading patterns in the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A., and generally much more economic evidence than the Fleck Committee apparently had. It had virtually no serious economic and statistical evidence. The Authority should therefore try to reach some conclusion about the right future size and shape of the industry.

The fact is that the industry presents a very puzzling picture at the moment. We are landing a good deal less fish than we were ten years ago, both from the British fleet and from imports. Prices are a good deal higher than they were ten years ago. Yet the industry is making greater losses than it was ten years ago. Why? This is a very paradoxical situation which the Authority should be studying and explaining.

I echo what has been said from this side of the House already. If these were the kind of things that the White Fish Authority had been doing, was doing at the moment, and was about to do in the future, we should be perfectly happy about doubling the levy. The fact is that in the past, although the Authority has done some things very well, such as administering grants and loans, it has not given the kind of leadership to the industry which, Heaven knows, the industry desperately needs. Therefore, we are not prepared to sign the blank cheque put before us tonight.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I support the general theme of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), namely that the Authority must show the industry that it is fulfilling a need, a need which is not duplicated elsewhere. When I first went to Hull nine years ago I found that all sections of the industry took the view that they did not mind paying a levy to the Authority, provided that it stayed out of their hair and left them alone. In those days the levy was ½d. per stone. Now it is to be 1d. per stone. The industry has advanced a long way since then in their desire for better co-ordination.

We want the Authority to do a constructive job. The hon. Member for Grimsby has mentioned many of the points I had intended to mention. I will underline one or two of them. First, publicity. As the hon. Gentleman said, £75,000 is useless. A good publicity campaign will cost very much more and should use television as well as the Press. Various sections of the industry spend a great deal of money on propaganda. If only these sums, plus the money the Authority has available, could be co-ordinated, we could have an effective white fish propaganda campaign. One task which should be tackled is that of persuading schools, hospitals and other institutions to buy decent fish. At the moment such institutions buy cheap fish. In schools, for example, it is being fed to youngsters. When they grow up, they hate fish almost for ever more and it takes a very long time to bring them round to liking this excellent food.

Research is needed. In the past the Authority has not been very successful. One or two projects undertaken by the Authority such as the "Northern Wave" freezing experiment are still talked about and, I fear, laughed at. Not only must the Authority undertake research. It must ensure that such research as it undertakes is not duplicated elsewhere. A great deal of research is going on in various places. There is the research going on under the Ministry Fisheries Department. There is the D.S.I.R. There is the W.F.A. Various sections of the industry carry out their own research. There is the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. If the Authority oversees a programme of research, without necessarily carrying out its own research, that will fulfil a useful function. It is fair to say that the most successful research so far has been done by the industry itself. The Authority, for example, is not very much help on the production of the "Lord Nelson" the "Junella", or similar modern kinds of trawler.

The third point which has been mentioned is co-ordination for the industry. Attention should be paid to leadership. An attempt should be made to get down to some form of rationalisation in the various sections of the industry and co-operation between the various sections. Consumer research and economic research should be conducted. It is ridiculous that the Authority carries out a great deal of this form of research, which is to some degree duplicated by other sections of the industry at Hull, Grimsby and in other ports. There is too much duplication. More co-ordination is being provided by the Joint Fisheries Committees in the House that is being provided at the moment by the Authority. The Authority should be doing the kind of work that we are doing at the moment. It should be trying to get the industry together to discuss its joint problems.

One hopes that the new Chairman. Mr. Matthews, will get down to this. If he does, £¼ million on a turnover of £59 will be a cheap price to pay. What we want from the Authority is best summed up by this paragraph from the editorial in the Fish Trades Gazette of 13th July: The important point is how and where the extra revenue is to be spent, and the industry should make sure that its views in this matter are respected. So far the authority has concentrated the greater part of its energies on the stimulation of production, but the point has now been reached where the most urgent need is to stimulate consumption. It can do this by demanding higher standards of quality and embarking upon more effective publicity schemes. If the White Fish Authority follows that advice, I do not think that this increase in levy will be at all expensive. If it does not—and this is a point which I put to my hon. Friend in the last fisheries debate—the Authority will have outlived its usefulness.

The Fleck Committee suggested amalgamation with the Herring Industry Board. I again commend to the attention of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the article in the Fishing News which suggested that if—and I repeat if—the White Fish Authority cannot fulfil the functions required by the whole of the industry, we should think of setting up four autonomous fishery boards, for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and with statutory powers and responsible directly to the Ministry. Then, at least, the boards would have close contact with the local ports in the area which it serves and we would get the liaison that we need between the various sections of the industry and not, as it now sometimes appears, rather distant guidance from London, which is a very long way from places like Aberdeen.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I will not keep the House more than two minutes. I wish only to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because I do not think that it could be suggested that I am unduly sensitive about the difficulties, at least of certain sections of the fishing industry.

I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made the speech that he did this evening.

Mr. Crosland

Disgraceful.

Mr. Loughlin

The hon. Member gave the game away in his last few sentences, because he did not intend to make a contribution to the discussion. He attempted a little filibuster, hoping that we wanted to get home, whereas he wanted to slay. That is a reversal of the facts, because we on this side have constantly been chided that we were keeping the House unnecessarily.

My position concerning the levy is clear. The White Fish Authority is a necessary organisation for the fishing industry. I want to see the Authority strengthened so that it can do the job which is being tried out in the industry. There is great need for complete co-ordination in the various parts of the industry, which in practice work as individual units. There are a great deal of other things that could be done as well.

I can only ask myself whether this is the time to impose upon the industry, particularly the inshore and the near and middle-water sections, an additional burden which they have to find. It is true that it comes from the consumer, but the industry must find it in the first instance. It may well be that what we are doing is merely increasing the losses which have to be borne by those two sides of the industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leith quoted the portions of the £268,000 that will have to be borne by the various sections and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will devote some of his time to replying to this. I cannot feel that at a time when the inshore and the near and middle-water boats are losing money and when, in practice, we are reducing the assistance which we are giving to those sections of the industry, we should impose an additional burden upon them. It is nonsense to recognise that many of the near and middle-water boats are losing up to £5,000 a year and, at the same time, proceed to decrease the assistance given to them and increase the amount they will have to pay by a levy of this kind. It will represent a substantial increase for these vessels. My mathematics are not good, but it would appear to represent an increase of 100 per cent. or from ½d. to 1d. per stone.

Leaving aside the £130,000 that will have to be found by the distant water boats, how will the near and middle-water vessels find this extra money? If they are now making losses of up to £5,000 a year, from where will the additional money come? Before the Prayer is rejected, we should be told in simple terms how the additional money is to be found by the middle and near water vessels, bearing in mind their present losses.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane (Westmorland)

It is not so long ago, when I was at the Ministry, that I listened to many debates on the fishing industry. I recall one part of the theme which ran through many hours of speeches: the need for more research and leadership in the industry. Was I satisfied that the industry was equipped to do these things, hon. Members continually asked the Government.

I have sat in the House tonight listening, somewhat curiously, to speeches from hon. Members who have apparently been saying that whereas the need for more research, greater leadership and more expenditure is necessary, for some reason the White Fish Authority should be denied the means for carrying that out. That is illogical.

This Prayer is really a political exercise rather than a service to the fishing industry. In an industry as diverse as fishing attention has been drawn to the natural difference of view that there must often be between the near, middle and distant water fleets because of the different nature of their business. But if this theme which has been deployed night after night in recent years for more to be done is to mean anything, surely it is illogical to suggest that this proposed increase is not serious and is designed to bring benefit to the industry?

I am sure that it will be demonstrated tonight by the Minister that there is a strong case for rejecting the Prayer. Having taken part in many of these debates before, I could not let this occasion pass without drawing attention to the illogical nature of many of the speeches to which we have been expected to listen.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

Is not the hon. Member being somewhat illogical? Is he not really saying that when he was at the Ministry he was not prepared to do what the present Ministry is prepared to do?

Mr. Vane

I do not follow the hon. Member.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I support the Prayer on principle, and also for the practical reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). I have rarely listened to a case more conclusively presented and argued than that presented by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). He put forward the principles that should actuate the House in accepting the Prayer and rejecting the Order, and supported his argument with a clear and coherent analysis of the figures in the Authority's Report. Each of my hon. Friends has dealt conclusively with a separate angle; together, they coerce the House into accepting the Prayer. For me to pursue either line would be to pile Pelion on Ossa.

11.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

I should like to deal, first, with the broad considerations that lie behind the decision to confirm the regulation made by the White Fish Authority to increase the levy to 1d. a stone, and then to deal with the special points raised by hon. Members. As the House knows, the levy had remained unchanged at ½d. a stone since 1956. The Authority's accounts showed a deficit in 1961–62 and 1962–63 of £17,000 and £52,000, respectively, and in 1963–64 the Authority estimated that it would have a deficit of £190,000 unless there was some change in the amount of levy. These deficits have been covered up to date by the Authority's reserve, but this situation obviously could not continue.

I should make it clear that the deficits have nothing to do with the grant and loans arrangements. In part, they have been due to increased costs of administration. The salaries of the staff have gone up and, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, have gone up quite considerably. This is partly due to the institution of the industrial development unit.

As the hon. Member for Grimsby knows, the percentage increase in costs one can show depends very much on the base year one takes. He took 1953, when the Authority was just starting up and had a rather small staff, but there has since been a considerable increase. That, combined with the setting-up of the industrial development unit, is the reason for the increased costs, especially the cost of salaries. Costs of office equipment, rates and travel have also gone up, but no more than would be expected in present circumstances—indeed, the increase is quite reasonable.

The hon. Member for Leith—and his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby—questioned the Authority's staying in London but, having examined the position very carefully, I think that the cost of the headquarters in London is very reasonable. I doubt whether it could get similar accommodation, with similar facilities, at anything like the same price—certainly not on the periphery of London—and I very much doubt whether it could get the same facilities anywhere else, remembering, of course, that it was in the country for a period earlier on.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that it is impossible to obtain premises for the Authority outside London for less than £17,000 a year?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

What I am saying is that I think that the cost to the Authority of their London premises is very reasonable. [An HON. MEMBER: "By what standard?"] By what the Authority has to do and the efficiency the Authority can gain by operating from London and the fact that it is a convenient place for those who wish to visit the Authority and from which the Authority can radiate. Travelling expenses would also be greatly increased if the Authority were to move.

In part the increased total expenditure has been due to the expansion of the Authority's expenditure on research and development. Direct expenditure on projects has increased from about £30,000 in 1959–60 to almost £60,000 in 1962–63. An expenditure of £150,000 is estimated for 1963–64. I should make it clear that this is the Authority's net expenditure on research and development. Besides this, there are contributions from the Treasury and in some cases there are direct contributions to research programmes from the industry as well.

These figures do not tell the whole story, because the cost of administering the research programme is included in the Authority accounts not under research but under administration and that figure has to be added. This part of the Authority's expenditure has been increased recently by the establishment of the industrial development unit estimated to cost £42,000 this year. This unit, located in Hull, is intended to supervise the Authority's research and development programme, but the most important part of its task will be to interpret the results of research and to help with advice on their commercial application. I need say no more about it, because hon. Members have probably read the informative article on the unit in last week's Fishing News.

This was the position in November when the Authority was running at a deficit and had established a new unit and it asked my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm the regulation increasing the levy. The objectors were heard and their objections carefully considered. I need not go into the objections in detail now. Many of the points raised have been mentioned by hon. Members.

We concluded that the only way of avoiding an increase in the levy would have been a substantial reduction of the Authority's activities. There are only three activities that cost any substantial sum of money at all. They are research and development, training and publicity. The future of the industry depends to a great extent on research and development and on training. I am sure that the House would agree that any substantial cut in either of these would be quite out of the question.

Publicity is another matter, but important sections of the industry, as the hon. Member for Grimsby has said, support the Authority's publicity work and would like to see it extended in many cases. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Leith has pointed out, the Authority, has had a new chairman appointed this month. I am glad that his appointment has been welcomed in all parts of the House and that he has been wished well in the formidable task that faces him. Many other changes have been made in the Authority's management. In these circumstances some increase in the levy was absolutely inevitable. We considered very carefully whether a levy of ¾d. would be possible instead of 1d., but this would still have meant that the Authority could not have spent the £150,000 on research and development, and we considered ways and means of finding the rest of the money. We already spend a substantial amount of money on fisheries research through grants to independent institutions, through work done in the fishery department's laboratories and through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Torry.

It seemed to us only right that the industry should contribute, either through the levy or by some direct means, to that part of the research programme which is deliberately aimed at benefit to the industry in the near future. Therefore, we asked the trawler owners whether they would make a direct contribution to research, and here I come to the point about how the industry can cope with this situation. We promised a substantial Exchequer contribution, together with the Authority's, so that the programme should go forward unchanged- Some trawler owners were willing to contribute, but the majority could not see their way to do this. So we were faced with the alternative of either cutting the research programme and the training programme or approving a rise in the levy from ½d. to 1d. Naturally, we have chosen the latter. Those were the considerations which lead us to make the Order which is now being prayed against.

If I may quickly deal with one or two of the points which have been raised, my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that he was worried about the duplication of research carried out by the Authority and by other bodies. I can assure him that there is no duplication here. The Authority itself has no research organisation as such, apart from the industrial development unit which has just been set up. The work is generally done in other organisations and the Authority contributes towards the work done by them. It makes contributions to those organisations. There are examples which I could give—

Mr. Wall

Could my hon. Friend say whether this research is co-ordinated centrally?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Yes, indeed. All the projects which the Authority undertakes and which need Government contributions as a corollary to the Authority's contribution are carefully scrutinised in the Department to make certain that there is no overlapping with other projects which are under way by independent or Government research institutions. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no duplication.

The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) referred to bad debts, the Authority's charges and so on. The bad debt provision, as the hon. Gentleman said, arises from the ½ per cent. margin between the interest paid to the Authority by borrowers and the interest paid by the Authority to the Exchequer. This has nothing whatever to do with the levy; it covers the margin of administrative costs relating to loans and grants. It is true that the Authority has a mortgage on the vessels, but mortgagees can lose money if there are no purchasers for the property on which they hold the mortgage. That is why the provision has to be made.

Another point that was raised referred to the quality of fish, and my hon. Friend said that it should be improved and that the Authority should bend its mind to achieving this improvement. In fact, the Fleck Committee has stressed the importance of this matter, and the Authority has now prepared a list of subjects suitable for regulations in the light of these discussions with the industry. I expect the Authority will be putting forward definite proposals based on this list in the near future.

May I now briefly tell the House about the industrial development unit which is of extreme importance in the context of the Authority's work in the future. The unit is co-ordinating the research which is done and the projects which are put forward by the Advisory Committee of the Authority, the Chairman of which is Sir Frederick Brundrett. This committee looks into research and draws up specifications for development work and arranges contracts with contractors. The staff of the unit, eight trained engineers, headed by a scientist from the D.S.I.R., will oversee the work carried out on the contracts and seethe prototypes are properly tested, and they make sure the results are interpreted and made available to the industry. They will also, which is very important, give advice on the commercial application of the research done.

Pleas have been made from both sides of the House that the Authority should give strong leadership to the industry. I believe firmly that if it has the means to implement its programme the new chairman, in course of time, will be able to give the lead which the industry wants. I think that to try to cut down its programme, whether in training, research, or elsewhere, would be disastrous for the industry and disastrous also for the Authority.

It may be that there are certain portions of the fleet which at the moment are going through hard times, but I would tell the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), if he can spare me a moment, that there is a great deal of controversy about who bears the cost of the levy. If one talks to the wholesalers one hears that they say they are paying the cost; if one talks to the retailers one hears that they say it is they who are bearing it; and the trawler owners say they are. They all seem to think they bear the cost of the levy. I do not accept the argument the hon. Gentleman put forward that because parts of the fleet are having a hard time therefore it is wrong that we should provide the means whereby the Authority can do the fundamental work which will strengthen the industry, not only for now but for the future as well. I believe that the Authority, with these funds, will be able to give the strong leadership which is asked for by the industry.

Mr. Loughlin

Is it true to say that money is paid direct by the trawler owners in this instance, and, if that is so, how can we expect trawlers which are losing money each year to have the additional burden, irrespective of what the arguments are?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The levy is paid by the wholesalers at this particular stage of the chain of distribution. So the argument is whether they pay a lesser or a greater part of it.

I think this Order will strengthen the industry and that the leadership will be there, and I therefore ask the House to reject the Prayer.

Mr. John Hall

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Authority intends to carry out experiments in marketing and distribution, which is a very important part of the industry? Is it also going to provide market information to the industry, and have an economics research unit as well? These are all very essential points.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I will not weary the House with the whole list of research projects to be undertaken, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend and give him the list, which I have here, of what the projects are.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order 1963 (S.I. 1963, No. 1169) dated 1st July, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 143.

Division No. 181.] AYES [8.35 p.m.
Ainsley, William Gunter, Ray Pentland, Norman
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hamilton, William (West Fife) Popplewell, Ernest
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Hannan, William Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Harper, Joseph Probert, Arthur
Balrd, John Hart, Mrs. Judith Redhead, E. C.
Barnett, Guy Hayman, F. H. Rhodes, H.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bence, Cyril Herbison, Miss Margaret Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hilton, A. V. Robertson, John (Paisley)
Benson, Sir George Holman, Percy Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blackburn, F. Hooson, H. E. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Blyton, William Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Boardman, H. Hoy, James H. Ross, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, Edward
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hunter, A. E. Skeffington, Arthur
Bowles, Frank Hynd, H. (Accrington) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Small, William
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Janner, Sir Barnett Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Snow, Julian
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jeger, George Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Spriggs, Leslie
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Dan (Burnley) Steele, Thomas
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cliffe, Michael Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Stones, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kelley, Richard Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Crosland, Anthony King, Dr. Horace Swain, Thomas
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Swingler, Stephen
Dalyell, Tam Lee, Frederick (Newton) Symonds, J. B.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Taverne, D.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lipton, Marcus Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Loughlin, Charles Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Delargy, Hugh Lubbock, Eric Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Dempsey, James McBride, N. Thornton, Ernest
Diamond, John McCann, John Thorpe, Jeremy
Dodde, Norman MacColl, James Wade, Donald
Edelman, Maurice McInnes, James Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Warbey, William
Fernyhough, E. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, Tudor
Finch, Harold Manuel, Archie Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Eric Mapp, Charles Whitlock, William
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mason, Roy Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mayhew, Christopher Willey, Frederick
Forman, J. C. Mendelson, J. J. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Millan, Bruce Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mitchison, G. R. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Monslow, Walter Winterbottom, R. E.
Ginsburg, David Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Woof, Robert
Gourlay, Harry O'Malley, B. K. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Grey, Charles Paget, R. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Parker, John Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Pavitt, Laurence Mr. Ifor Davies.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Peart, Frederick
NOES
Aitken, Sir William Brooman-White, R. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Allason, James Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Doughty, Charles
Arbuthnot, John Bullard, Denys Drayson, G. B.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Duncan, Sir James
Atkins, Humphrey Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Balniel, Lord Cary, Sir Robert Emery, Peter
Barter, John Channon, H. P. G. Fell, Anthony
Batsford, Brian Chataway, Christopher Finlay, Graeme
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Chichester-Clark, R. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Cleaver, Leonard Foster, John
Berkeley, Humphry Cole, Norman Freeth, Denzil
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Cooke, Robert Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Biffen, John Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Gammans, Lady
Bingham, R. M. Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Bishop, F. P. Critchley, Julian Glover, Sir Douglas
Black, Sir Cyril Crowder, F. P. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Bourne-Arton, A. Curran, Charles Goodhew, Victor
Box, Donald Currie, G. B. H. Gower, Raymond
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Dalkeith, Earl of Grant-Ferris, R.
Brewis, John d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Green, Alan
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Gurden, Harold
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maitland, Sir John Sharples, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Marten, Neil Shaw, M.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Smithers, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir. Harwood (Eye) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Mawby, Ray Speir, Rupert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stodart, J. A.
Hay, John Mills, Stratton Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Montgomery, Fergus Storey, Sir Samuel
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Studholme, Sir Henry
Hendry, Forbes Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Talbot, John E.
Hill, J. E, B, (S. Norfolk) Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John Osborn, John (Hallam) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Holland, Philip Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Hornby, R. P. Page, Graham (Crosby) Temple, John M.
Hughes-Young, Michael Page, John (Harrow, West) Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Partridge, E. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Jennings, J. C. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Peel, John Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Pike, Miss Mervyn Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Kerby, Capt. Henry Pilkington, Sir Richard Turner, Colin
Kershaw, Anthony Pitman, Sir James Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Kirk, Peter Pott, Percivall Tweedsmuir, Lady
Kitson, Timothy Price, David (Eastleigh) Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Leavey, J. A. Prior, J. M. L. Vane, W. M. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Vickers, Miss Joan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Proudfoot, Wilfred Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Lilley, F. J. P. Ramsden, James Walder, David
Lindsay, Sir Martin Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Walker, Peter
Litchfield, Capt. John Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) Wall, Patrick
Loveys, Walter H. Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet) Ward, Dame Irene
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Renton, Rt. Hon. David Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McAdden, Sir Stephen Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Wise, A. R.
MacArthur, Ian Robson Brown, Sir William Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
McLaren, Martin Roots, William Woodhouse, C. M.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Woollam, John
McMaster, Stanley R. Russell, Ronald
Maddan, Martin St. Clair, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maginnis, John E. Scott-Hopkins, James Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym.
Division No. 182.] AYES [11.29 p.m.
Ainsley, William George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) O'Malley, B. K.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gourlay, Harry Peart, Frederick
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Grey, Charles Pentland, Norman
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Blyton, William Hannan, William Probert, Arthur
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hart, Mrs. Judith Redhead, E. C.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.) Hayman, F. H. Rhodes, H.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Herbison, Miss Margaret Robertson, John (Paisley)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hilton, A. V. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Holman, Percy Ross, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Short, Edward
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hoy, James H. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Small, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Stones, William
Crosland, Anthony Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Taverne, D.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Thornton, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Wainwright, Edwin
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kelley, Richard Watkins, Tudor
Davies, Ifor (Gower) King, Dr. Horace Weitzman, David
Delargy, Hugh Lawson, George Wilkins, W. A.
Dempsey, James Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Willey, Frederick
Diamond, John Loughlin, Charles Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Dodds, Norman McCann, John Winterbottom, R. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacColl, James Woof, Robert
Fernyhough, E. McInnes, James Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Finch, Harold Manuel, Archie
Fletcher, Eric Mapp, Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Forman, J. C. Millan, Bruce Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R. Mr. Whitlock.
Galpern, Sir Myer Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
NOES
Aitken, Sir William Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Atkins, Humphrey Goodhart, Philip Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Awdry Daniel (Chippenham) Goodhew, Victor Neave, Airey
Barter, John Gower, Raymond Orr-Ewing Sir Charles
Batsford, Brian Green, Alan Osborn, Jorn (Hallam)
Berkeley, Humphry Gresham Cooke, R. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bidgood, John C. Gurden, Harold Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Biffen, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Peel, John
Bingham, R. M. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bishop, F. P. Harris, Reader (Heston) Pitman, Sir James
Black, Sir Cyril Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pott, Percivall
Bourne-Arton, A. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Box, Donald Harvie Anderson, Miss Prior, J. M. L.
Braine, Bernard Hendry, Forbes Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Brewis, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John Pym, Francis
Brooman-White, R. Holland, Philip Ramsden, James
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hollingworth, John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bryan, Paul Hornby, R. P. Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Bullard, Denys Hughes-Young, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Cary, Sir Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Chichester-Clark, R. Jennings, J. C. Roots, William
Cleaver, Leonard Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cole, Norman Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Russell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert Kershaw, Anthony Scott-Hopkins, James
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Kirk, Peter Sharples, Richard
Crawley, Aldan Kitson, Timothy Shepherd, William
Curran, Charles Lancaster, Col. C. G. Smithers, Peter
Currie, G. B. H. Leavey, J. A. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stodart, J. A.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Studholme, Sir Henry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lilley, F. J. P. Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Doughty, Charles Lindsay, Sir Martin Temple, John M.
Drayson, G. B. Litchfield, Capt. John Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Duncan, Sir James Loveys, Walter H. Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaren, Martin Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Foster, John Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs) Turner, Colin
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Freeth, Denzil Maginnis, John E. Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Vane, W. M. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Glover, Sir Douglas Mawby, Ray Vickers, Miss Joan
Wakefield, Sir Wavell Williams, Dudley (Exeter) Woollam, John
Walder, David Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Walker, Peter Wise, A. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wall, Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur.
Ward, Dame Irene Woodhouse, C. M.