HC Deb 04 March 1964 vol 690 cc1405-47

Amendment made: In page 19, line 39, after "question", insert "is or"—.[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to n.ove Amendment 64, in page 20, line 4, after "which", to insert: (subject to any directions to the contrary given under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of the next following paragraph) ".

Mr. Mellish

On a point of order, we have put down the following Amendment, No. 73: in page 21, line 14, at end insert: (4) A control of movement order containing provision for matters referred to in paragraph (c) of the foregoing subsection shall not empower any person to prohibit a ship from entering a harbour by reason of the ship not being fitted with equipment specified in the order unless the equipment is required to be fitted in pursuance of an internationally agreed convention accepted by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom . I should like to know the position about this. Our Amendment deals with a similar point. I wonder if it should be discussed with the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, or taken separately. What is the intention of the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

I understood that Amendment No. 66: in page 20, line 11, after second "and", insert: subject to the next following subsection and Amen3ment No. 73, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), were to be discussed with the following Amendment: in page 20, line 8, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert: (c) empowering such person as may be specified in the order to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches ':hereto move only at specified times or during specified periods and to or from specified places, through specified areas, along specified routes or through specified channels (d) empowering such person as may be specified in the order, in a case in which it appears to him expedient so to do by reason of restriction of visibility by the weather or by the presence of dust or smoke, to prohibit a ship from entering the harbour (or, as the case may be, both or one of the harbours) unless the ship is fitted with such equipment as may be so specified, being—

  1. (i) radio navigational aids (as defined by section 36 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949) of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention to which the United Kingdom it a party or to standards that have been recommended by any international conference and to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have signified their approval; or
  2. (ii) apparatus of such a kind as aforesaid for transmitting information from the ship or receiving information transmitted thereto.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Further to that: point of order. I suggest that it would be better to take the Opposition Amendments separately, because unless I misunderstood I do not think the Amendments are all that similar. It seems that here is a group of Amendments in Clause 18 which deal with the working of the scheme as a whole, quite a large number. I suggest that all the following are related: Amendment Nos. 64 and 65, Amendment 67: in page 20, line 17 after "specifying", insert: (unless the said scheme is expressed by the order to have effect at all times)". Amendment 68: In page 20, line 18, leave out "the said scheme" and insert "it".

Amendment 69: In page 20, line 21, leave out from "effect" to "and" in line 22.

Amendment 70: In page 20, line 25, at end insert: (f) specifying the place at which the equipment by means of which the said scheme is to be put into effect is to be installed, if it is to be installed on land, or, if it is to be installed in a ship or vehicle, the place at which the ship or vehicle is to be moored or stationed. Amendment 79: In page 22, line 28, leave out "in which" and insert: or vehicle in which or any ship or aircraft on board of which". Amendment 80: In page 23, line 3, after "that", insert: in exercise of powers conferred by paragraph (b) above". I think the Opposition Amendments raise much wider issues, unless I have misunderstood, and that it would be more convenient to discuss them separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The debate can be wide, but the Opposition Amendments have not been selected and it is the decision that they can be discussed with the Government Amendments. I understand that they would fall if the Government Amendments were accepted. They are not selected, but can be discussed.

Mr. Mellish

Can they not only be discussed but, if necessary, voted upon?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, I think they fall if the Government Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Mellish

It is important to get this clear. In our view, our Amendments are much stronger than the Government Amendments. We think our wording is right and our intentions are right, although possibly we would not wish to oppose the Government. We have had this problem earlier today and we would wish to divide the House if the Government were not able to accept our wording. If we were allowed to discuss our Amendments with the Government Amendment we could perhaps have a separate vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I understand that the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, Amendment No. 66, is a paving one for Amendment No. 73, and that the first falls if the Government Amendment is accepted. It therefore follows that the other Amendment would fall as well. The point is whether the hon. Member would wish to divide the House on the other Amendment. We had better have the discussion of the Amendments together and I shall consider about a Division later when we have heard the discussion.

8.15 p.m.

Commander Pursey

I should like Amendment No. 73 taken separately. This Clause has a number of subsections and the first series of Amendments is to subsection (4). Amendment No. 73 deals with a separate subject, with relation to a ship entering a harbour and lack of equipment. I submit that that Amendment should be taken on its merits, separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think we should start as suggested, I understand that at present we are Amendment No. 64.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Amendment No. 64 is a paving Amendment to the Amendment which immediately follows. Perhaps I may discuss Amendment No. 65 at the same time, or is it proposed that we should vote on No. 64?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am still not quite clear how it might affect discussions in connection with Amendments Nos. 66 and 73.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

The meat in the Government's Amendments is to be found in Amendment No. 55. That claims most of the importance, and Amendment No. 64 is a paving Amendment to it. Perhaps we could take the two Amendments together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If Amendment No. 64 is taken now, can the Minister tell me that it does not prejudice anything which may be done subsequently about the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey? If so we should take it separately and dispose of it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I think the position would be that if the Opposition were able to persuade us to accept the principle of Amendment No. 73 we should have to agree to make necessary drafting Amendments later in another place. They would be only drafting Amendments because, as you pointed out, Amendment No. 66 will fall it Amendment No. 65 is accepted because the numbering of the subsections would be changed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it would be probably better to discuss all together Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 73.

Mr. Mellish

I am happy to do that, but when we come to our Amendments we should like to have the right to vote on them. Otherwise we should be in an invidious position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The point I am not quite clear about is that if the Government Amendment No. 65 is accepted as presumably it will be I understand that Amendment No. 66 would be lost. I am not clear about No. 73 but perhaps that will emerge in the course of the discussion.

Mr. Mellish

The Government Amendments come before ours and, if they are passed, as we assume they will be, because hordes of hon. Members will no doubt come in, our Amendments could not be voted upon. I do not know what will be said in debate, but at the end of the day, to show our disapproval and how we feel about this matter we may vote against the Government merely because we think our wording would be better.

Dr. King

Further to that point of order. I rarely intervene on points of order, Sir Robert, but may I respectfully suggest to you that while the debate is proceeding you should examine the contention which some of us make that it would be possible to make both Amendment No. 65 and Amendment No. 73 to the Bill. Since it would be possible to do so, it might be in order for us to have an opportunity to vote on Amendment. No. 73 when we reach it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

My difficulty has been to know exactly where we are on the Amendments. I hope that that will emerge in the course of the discussion.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, in page 20, line 4, after "which'' to insert: (subject to any directions to the contrary given under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of the next following paragraph)". In moving the Amendment I think that it would be convenient to the House to discuss with it the next Amendment, in page 20, line 8. Indeed, after the exchanges on points of order I am sure that would be the best way to proceed—to consider the main changes which we propose to make in the control of movement procedure. These changes are designed to allay the fears which were expressed in Committee without, at the same time detracting in any way from the essential object behind the Clause, which is to supplement a radar information service such as already exists in a number of our harbours by effective control of the timing and routing of vessels entering and leaving the harbour concerned, and also by enabling the control authority to prevent vessels from entering or leaving if they do not possess the means of communicating with the radar information station and thus benefiting from the information service.

The new paragraph (c) makes it clear that the control authority cannot "con" ships, to use the technical term, but can control only the timing and routing of other movements. As I said on Second Reading and several times in Committee, we have never intended that orders to the rudders and engines of vessels should be given from the shore, but, having said that, I would add that it is true that the Clause in its original form would permit the making of a control order en those lines. I concede that at once. But I repeat that the new wording which we propose rules this completely out, as hon. Members will see if they study it with the care with which, indeed, I am sure they have already studied it.

The new paragraph (d) restricts the powers to prohibit a ship without the requisite equipment from entering or leaving in periods of low visibility. The reason why some rewording was necessary was that in Committee we accepted an Amendment, which I think was a good Amendment, moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), which struck out the reference to low visibility in the governing words at the beginning of the Clause so that the low visibility requirement is now linked specifically with the power to prevent ships from entering until the visibility improves.

Paragraph (d) also makes a further restriction on what can be done in these orders because it restricts the equipment which may be specified to types of radar or radio telephone which conform to standards already recognised by international agreement. In passing, we do not expect ship-borne radar to be mentioned in control of movement orders in the foreseeable future. However, technical progress is swift, and we have been strongly recommended by our technical advisers that we ought to look ahead and to write a provision into the Bill so that in due course we can take advantage of it.

The point which is important is that if the Amendment is accepted no order can be made specifying equipment which is peculiar to this country. That, I think, was the fear of Opposition spokesmen in Committee, who felt that if this were done other countries might follow suit. I gather that hon. Members opposite also have some fears about new equipment, but, with respect, they have no grounds for this, because we have specifically restricted the power to equipment already included in conventions agreeing to certain listed types of equipment—conventions which the great majority of countries have acceded to and ratified.

I had better go no further than this at the moment. The other important change which we are making in the Clause is in relation to specifying the equipment required by a control authority, but that arises under Amendment No. 70 which we are not discussing at present. Perhaps I may stop there and ask the House to approve the Amendment I have moved and the following one.

Commander Pursey

I understand that we can discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 66 and 73, with the object of their being moved later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that that will be possible. I have had certain consultations, and if No. 65 is accepted it will not be possible for the others to be moved. The only way in which the hon. and gallant Member can register support of them is by voting against Amendment No. 65.

Commander Pursey

All I wish to get clear was that we are free to discuss all four Amendments.

First, I want to take up some points which the Parliamentary Secretary made about radar. Later, I shall show that in some ports information services may be sufficient without radar and that there are certain objections to radar. The question of restriction on equipment is also a matter of opinion but, having put it on the record, I cannot go on disputing it.

Amendment No. 73 deals specifically with control of movement orders. It says that such an order shall not empower any person to prohibit a ship from entering a harbour by reason of the ship not being fitted with equipment… It may be true that many United Kingdom ships have such equipment but, for example in the Thames, as hon. Members can see from the Terrace, 40 per cent. of the traffic consists of small ships and estuarial craft, and probably more than half of it does not have the aids suggested. What is to be the dividing line between the size and type of ship in which it will be insisted that special equipment must be fitted and the size and type of vessel which will be exempt because so far, even in Committee, this sort of exemption has not been mentioned?

8.30 p.m.

Bearing in mind the principle which is involved, have the possible international repercussions been considered on the imposing of unilateral requirements to fit equipment by the back door, as it were? If we in Britain take this action, and ships are obliged to be fitted with this equipment, may not the masters and others responsible, who may be taken to court and punished, have some complaint to make? May not similar action be taken by other countries against the owners of British vessels if our ships are not fitted with certain specified equipment?

The experts have suggested that ships fitted with radar but without v.h.f. radiotelephony are a potential menace, particularly in the context of the control scheme we are considering. I will not go into the technicalities of this. We must also consider the question of shipowners having the choice of two alternative ports at which to unload, one where this sort of equipment is required and the other where there does not operate a control of movement order. In such cases owners of vessels without this equipment will be encouraged to go to ports where they are not likely to get into trouble.

The organisation concerned with this matter objects to this form of compulsion and they call in aid the fact that keen shipowners appreciate the benefit of being able to take part in port information services. These services have spread because of the voluntary installation of v.h.f. equipment in ships. It is interesting to note, for example, that according to the Thames Information Service, in June, 1960, only 17 per cent. of vessels passing the Nore used the service, although the percentage has been steadily rising. In December, 1960, 27 per cent. used the service. In 1961, it was 40 per cent., 1962, 49 per cent. and, in 1963, 54 per cent. used it. This is another indication of the increasing extent to which v.h.f. equipment is being fitted to ships. It is worth mentioning that by 30th May, 1961, British equipment of this sort had been fitted into 550 foreign ships and that by 16th November, 1962, 1,095 foreign vessels were so fitted.

The argument advanced is that this installation of equipment is going on successfully by voluntary means so why, they wonder, do the Government wish to introduce this element of compulsion and draft the Bill in such a way that entry may be refused to British ships—more important, to foreign ships—if they do not have a certain type of equipment.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what might be called the specification aspect of this. Despite the sort of unilateral requirement to fit this equipment into ships and considering the rapid pace at which v.h.f. equipment is being installed in both United Kingdom and foreign vessels, British shipowners are strongly urging that any compulsion under the Bill should not enable harbour authorities to prohibit the entry of a ship because of its lack of equipment unless and until the right of harbour authorities to exercise this power has been recognised internationally and a specification for the equipment to be adopted is also recognised internationally.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply that, if we are to wait for international agreement, we may wait indefinitely. Who is to know that? Without these movement and control orders, there has been a speedy fitting of certain equipment. Before there is any question of insisting that certain equipment should be used, it should be specifically stated what types of equipment are suitable.

Today I had Questions on the Order Paper to the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Transport, but they were not reached. As I have been giving my attention to the Bill, I am not yet clear what the Answers are. However, the Postmaster General has said in an Answer that certain types of equipment are available. The contrary is also implied, that, if the types of equipment are not those on the Postmaster-General's approved list, they will not be acceptable by port authorities. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this position is not as simple and clear-cut and that the authorities which will be responsible for fitting the equipment are not happy about it.

The equipment has to deal with two ends. The re is the question of ships at the seagoing end and where pilot cutters are used at the estuary, like there are on the Humber. We might say that they are at the receiving end. Then there is the question of the equipment to be used at the shore installation. There are certain limitations by virtue of range, which the Postmaster-General controls, because every type of ship and pilot cutter cannot have sets, even of the same type, with different ranges of excessive length. The same thing applies with dock authorities, particularly where there are several docks, and docks on both sides of an estuary, as there are, for instance, at Hull and on the other side of the river at Immingham.

Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this again. Even if he cannot answer all the questions I have put and clear up the matter completely—I do not expect him to off the cuff tonight—he should arrange before the Bill is dealt with in another place to inform the authorities concerned—dock and harbour authorities from the point of view of shore installations, and shipowners and masters—what types are available, what should be fitted, and what exceptions can be made to foreign vessels arriving here if they have a satisfactory set. Will there be any instance of a foreign vessel arriving in the Humber with a perfectly satisfactory and efficient set, from the point of view of being able to communicate and from the point of view of having a limited range, being turned away because it does not satisfy our specifications or is not on our official list?

If that sort of cold war is to be started in shipping circles, there is no question but that the British Government will be in trouble with foreign vessels coming to this country, and it may well be that British ships will be in trouble when visiting foreign ports.

Dr. King

This debate is a continuation of the debate we had at great length in Committee about the control of movement of ships in harbours. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, or both of them, are the only people in the country who want to give landsmen control over captains and pilots bringing ships into harbour. Let that be quite clear. The Minister has failed to reply to the question I put to him much earlier today, when I asked him to tell me one body of men in the country who really want this control of movement.

One of the Amendments we are considering improves the Clause slightly in a direction for which we asked in Committee. One of the Amendments, as I hope to show the Committee, makes it even worse. We opposed the Clause in Committee; we voted against it. We sought to improve it. In Committee we got the Minister to accept some improvements. We got him to undertake to look at some of the Amendments we suggested, and at least one of them is before us in part of the Amendment in page 20, line 8.

The classic case—and this has a bearing on paragraph (c)—was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), when he told the Committee: It is one thing for a harbour master to say that he should enter"— that is, the captain: even at a certain time. It is another thing if the harbour master were to say that he may enter. We are concerned as to where the responsibility lies and who makes the executive decision. If the harbour master"— and for "harbour master" we may read the Control of Movement Committee which the Minister is to set up: is going to be given the authority to make the executive decision, not in fine weather but in weather of low visibility, then the argument of everybody concerned—Chamber of Shipping, ship-owners, masters and pilots flatly state this is wrong…The crux of our argument here is that the master should decide on the advice of the pilot, if he has a pilot. They have nothing in common except that they want to get the ship in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 450.] The new paragraph (d), to some extent gives us what we asked for, but it does not cover the matter so widely as would our Amendment in page 21, line 14—No. 73—which we are also discussing but on which we cannot vote. The new paragraph (d) puts a limitation according to international convention on the kinds of equipment that can be used in visibility conditions of dust and smoke. Our Amendment would have gone wider than that.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government have accepted our argument that if we insist on any ship having any kind of radar or v.h.f. equipment, that equipment must conform to some international convention. We believe that it would be idle, impertinent and dangerous for Britain to try to lay down the kinds of equipment that any foreign ship coming to this country should use. As we said in Committee, if that were done, the Dutch, the Germans or anyone else could also insist on their own kinds of equipment, and we could have international anarchy. We therefore said to the Minister, "If you are to specify equipment, that equipment must be internationally agreed upon." The Minister has agreed.

Originally, the Clause was even worse. It could have been taken not only to specify v.h.f. or radar as being on a ship, but almost to specify the particular make or brand of radar or v.h.f. The new paragraph (d) gets rid of that difficulty; there is no insistence on equipment unless there is international agreement.

One of the troubles was that the wording of the original Clause made it possible—and the Parliamentary Secretary agreed in Committee that I was right—to confuse the equipment specified for use in harbour and on land and the kind to be used in the ship. That point has been cleared up, or almost cleared up, but I suggest that there is still some ambiguity in the Government's Amendment in page 20, line 25—No. 70 in the Notice Paper. The ship there referred to is obviously the fixed ship and not the ship dealt with in the control of movement orders.

I mention that because I think that paragraph (d) would be better placed quite apart from those subsections of Clause 1 that deal with what we call the "scheme". There would then be no possibility of ambiguity about the difference between the kind of equipment that is used on land—where I think that the Minister has an absolute right, and is wise, to specify the kind of radar, and the rest, to be used—or in fixed ships or vehicles, and the very limited enforcement of equipment on ships coming into and going out of harbours.

8.45 p.m.

Paragraph (d), on the other hand, is quite different. We are back to the old problem about which the captains and the masters of ships are terribly worried. Over and over again, the Minister himself has said that he wants no detailed control of the master or pilot. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that there is no intention of taking away the actual handling of the ship from the control of the master, acting on the advice of the pilot". In the same speech, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said: Once we write words into the Bill, it will not he easy to change them if the courts interpret them in a way we had not foreseen".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F. 4th February, 1964; c. 441–2.] I direct the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to paragraph (c) and ask him what is left to the captain's initiative when we empower the control of movement authority to empower such person as may be specified in the order"— and he will be a landsman not a seaman— to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches thereto move only at specified times or during specified periods and to or from specified places, through specified areas, along specified route; or through specified channels". The only thing left out is a specified captain to carry out the specified instructions in what I regard as a ridiculous Amendment. It goes far beyond anything that even the Minister himself nerds in his control of movement order.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said in Committee that he did not mind arrangements being made about timing. If we accept paragraph (c) in its present form, we shall be tying the captains of our shim in a way against which they would indignantly protest. I hope that the Minister will have still further thoughts about it before the Bill leaves another place.

Mr. Mellish

We thought that our Amendment in page 21, line 14, to insert a new subsection (4) was a better Amendment because, referring to equipment, it uses the words— unless the equipment is required to be fitted in pursuance of an internationally agreed convention". In the Government Amendment, the words do not have the same impact and assurance as the reference to an international convention. It reads: of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention". We say that the equipment must be entirely agreed by all the countries before we ask our own ships or foreign ships to have it.

I put another point to the Parliamentary Secretary now. The Mercantile Marine Service Association, which represents, I understand, many of our masters of ships to lay, bitterly complains that the Minister has still not consulted it personally as an organisation about these matters. The Merchant Navy and Airline Officer' Association is still concerned ever about the Minister's own Amendment. I should be the first to agree that he has gone a long way to try to meet the point of view we expressed in Committee. I know that one of these organisations is allied to the T.U.C., but I would not have thought that the other one was. I find it bewildering in trying to understand why these organisations were not consulted. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a "thing" about safety, and I commend him on it. He is to be admired for giving a lead. He has always adopted the attitude that if one tried to get agreement between all these organisations one would never arrive at an agreed form of words. I understand that. However, why we have not had a "get together" on safety at sea at Ministry of Transport level I cannot understand. The Opposition would willingly have had one, because there is no party politics in that matter.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) have said, we concede at once that the Government have gone a long way to relieving the genuine fears about the control of movement. In spite of that, however, there are still very grave fears. We shall wait to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, but if we vote against the Government's Amendment it will be because we are not able to vote for our own.

I readily appreciate the trouble to which the Parliamentary Secretary personally has gone in trying to meet the points concerning safety at sea. Later we shall discuss the penalties which arise from this part of the Bill and other parts. Some hon. Members opposite have Amendments down on that subject. I hope that they take the point that we can get into a great deal of bother on the question of equipment, particularly abroad. It has been put to me that our friends in Ghana—I assume that they are our friends; I am not sure who are our friends these days; we seem to be sending our troops all over the world to look after someone or other—have different standards about justice. It seems that they have a very happy procedure by which if they do not approve of the decisions given by the judges they sack them. As a democrat, that seems to me a bit odd. But imagine what would happen if, because equipment was not being used properly a Ghanaian sailor—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

The hon. Member has moved off the Amendments on to the penal Clauses. I thought that we were to discuss those subsequently.

Mr. Mellish

Certainly. But if these people do not have the sort of equipment which is being demanded here and, as a consequence, disobey a control of movement order they can find themselves being punished, as a result of which certain things will be done. We will argue about the question of punishment in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen will have a great deal to say about it, as will I think some hon. Members opposite.

This is why the Merchant Navy officers are frightened and worried. They say that if a Ghanaian ship does not have the equipment which the Parliamentary Secretary says it should have and it gets into trouble with our courts—I am not arguing what penalties will be imposed—what will happen to a British ship entering a port in Ghana if a case concerning it goes before the local Ghanaian court? Would that court be reasonably generous?

The Parliamentary Secretary keeps talking about radio aboard ship and getting messages through. Does the Amendment in page 20, line 25, make it perfectly clear that there will be all the necessary apparatus on shore? I am told that quite a few harbours do not have this apparatus. Do not let us start talking about sending messages from ships if there is not all the equipment which is required on land. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why words such as those in our Amendment cannot be put in his Amendment.

I have been critical. This was inevitable because of the representations made to us by the people responsible for our Merchant Navy. This sort of thing always happens when somebody tries to do what is basically a good thing. I admit that anyone who tries to do something of this kind will get into trouble, but at least the Parliamentary Secretary tried and we appreciate what he has done. I recognise that he has gone a long way to meeting what most of us on this side wanted, but we do not think that he has gone far enough. If we vote because we have not had a satisfactory reply, I hope that it will be clearly understood why.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

What impresses me most is that it is apparent that I have come no nearer than I did on the first day we ever discussed this flatter in explaining what it is about. I do not think that even the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has any clear mental picture of what is involved in these schemes. I will deal last with the important question of the Amendment in page 21, line 14, and the question of international agreement.

The hon. and gallant Member talked about a dividing line between ships which would have to have the equipment and those which would not, and how it would be decided. Nobody is compelled to have the equipment. The power that is taken in the Clause is to write into a control of movement order a rule that ships which are unable to communicate with the control station must wait in conditions of fog or low visibility to which the Parliamentary draftsman thought it wise to add smoke or dust. There is a clear reason for doing this.

I have made inquiries of some of the ports which already have these voluntary schemes. In the Port of London, we are advised that ships which do not have radio communication with the information centre anchor in the channels and cause considerable difficulty and even danger to moving traffic. They usually close the port in the process. There is no means of warning them that they are getting into difficulty and that the weather is thicker than they think. Old Captain So-and-so says that he knows how to smell his way into the harbour. So he may, but in the process he will close the route to everybody else. This happens with the ships which are permitted to go into the extra narrow channels. It makes nonsense of all the expensive equipment which is installed to advise these ships how to move in safety.

Mr. Mellish

Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that 40 per cent. of the small craft coming into the Thames with cargo are not fitted with this equipment?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I am surprised that the percentage is not more, but I shall come to that presently when I reach the question of the dividing line.

I wish to refute some of the suggestions that there is no need for this arrangement. Southampton informs us that there have been occasions, as one would expect, when ships without v.h.f. have anchored and caused delays to other traffic. There have been occasions when ships without v.h.f. could not be warned that conditions were more difficult than was thought at the other end of the channel, with resultant danger. In Liverpool, from which we have the Host accurate statistics, it appears that during 1963 there were 23 separate different occasions in fog when ships without v.h.f. anchored and caused congestion and stoppage for 131 vessels. That is serious quite apart from all the danger involved.

The hon and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about dividing files. It is impossible to answer his question generally with precision everywhere, because it will depend upon the individual control of movement order, which in turn depends upon the harbour. It may be that the big ship channel is delineated by buoys and bounded by the depth of the water. In that case, there may be plenty of shallower water either side of the channel. In that event, the local authority, in making the control of movement order, would probably apply it to ships wanting to move in the deep water part of the channel. The small ships without equipment could be told that they could move as long as they kept one side or other of the main channel.

It may be a purely artificial channel. In some cases, it may be a broad estuary with plenty of deep water everywhere, and this is what is allowed for in paragraph (b) by laying down in advance, where appropriate, certain routes, which might be called one-way streets, such as my right hon. Friend establishes for the great advantage of traffic moving in London.

It may seem extraordinary to hon. Members that this is not already done in congested harbours. The reason is because the authorities have not the power in many cases to do it. We are giving them that power. Subsection 3(c) was criticised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), and I absolutely reject his criticism as being entirely wide of the mark. Subsection 3(c) permits what one might call the standing instructions to be varied to suit the conditions. It may be that the channel normally used by vessels entering the harbour is blocked by a ship running aground or sunk in it. Not unnaturally, when that happens it is necessary for the harbour authorities to have the power to tell ships to use the other channel. If it is a channel which is too narrow for big ships to pass in, then they will have to specify times—this is where timing comes in—when the channel is open to ships entering or leaving. It is not true to say that these things can all be arranged by mutual agreement—they cannot. There are dangerous situations which are produced, and we are not the only country that is thinking about it.

9.0 p.m.

Indeed, on the very day that the Opposition divided against Clause 18, in Committee, when I got back to the Ministry of Transport I read an account in the paper Fairplay, a shipping paper, of a report which had just been submitted by a committee of inquiry set up by the American Secretary of State for Commerce on this very subject. They have been more unlucky than we have. They have had some disastrous collisions involving tankers in estuaries. That committee recommended the establishment of a system of control not unlike what we are doing now.

Mr. Mellish

It is unilateral.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

That may be terrible to the hon. Gentleman, but it is not to me. After all, this is inside a country's own territorial waters. We are not talking about doing something in international waters.

I will refer to some of the reasons given against doing this, unilaterally as the hon. Gentleman calls it. It was said that the masters of ships which had not the equipment would be liable to the penal section of this Clause for disobeying orders. There is no need for them to disobey the control order merely because they have not the equipment. All they require to do is to wait until the weather clears, which probably they would have to do in any case if they had not the equipment. But the authority responsible for movement—in reply to the hon. Member for Itchen, there will now be pilots on that authority—will not permit any ships in the channel unless they know, not merely think, that the channel will be cleared during the course of the movement.

A great deal has been said about the nature of the equipment chiefly by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). There is no question of British equipment being specified. The international agreement to which I have referred and to which reference is made in subsection (3,d), which I think is perfectly clear, does not specify that the equipment must be made by Messrs. Bloggs. It specifies that the wave lengths and frequencies on which the equipment operates shall ensure that it can "talk". In fact, I think that all ships carrying v.h.f. have already equipment which conforms with what is agreed in the 1959 Geneva Convention, which is the most up-to-date one.

Hon. Members who followed the features of the "Lakonia" disaster will recollect that the rescue ships in the neighbourhood were able to communicate with each other as they approached. How does the House imagine that this was done? It was done on the radio telephone, and the reason they were on the same frequency was that there is an international agreement to use the same frequency.

I referred to it in Committee. We did not put it in the Bill originally because nobody but a lunatic would make a control order specifying equipment other than had been agreed internationally. Now we have written this into the Statute and apparently met the views of hon. Members who think that these orders may be made only by lunatics.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said that my right hon. Friend and I were the only people who wanted movement orders. If so, we need not argue about whether they are right or wrong because there will not be any. No power is given to my right hon. Friend to impose an order. The initiative is left entirely to the harbour authority. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to worry about whether that statement is true.

The hon. Gentleman revived the old hare about ships being compelled to enter even if they did not want to. He is usually so fair. There is no need to worry about this. Subsection (c), the operative one, is quite clear. It says: movement of ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates and the approaches thereto and, where it appears…expedient to do so, to prohibit a ship from entering and the next subsection refers to the movement taking place only at specified times. It does not say the vessels are to move at specified times. It says they are to move only at specified times. In other words, they are not to move at times which are not specified.

Furthermore, as I am sure the House knows, the special defence provided for a little later in the Bill gives adequate scope for defence if the master has reason to think that the order would endanger his ship or if it is impracticable to conform with the order. I submit that the objections which have been raised are so many mare's nests.

I now come to the last Amendment. My reading of it is that it is entirely different from anything that we are suggesting. My reading of it is that it says that Britain must not proceed with any arrangements to improve safety and movements in her harbours until she can get international agreement to do so. Thus, the whole of the edifice of orders and controls and so on would be dependent upon international agreement.

I repeat what I said in Committee that in practice that is a wrecking Amendment. I am sure that the Opposition would be right to vote against the Clause if that is what they really believe. I can say that if we were told that we must not proceed with this scheme until we had secured international agreement, the last thing we should do would be to tie our hands by writing the details of a movement order into a Statute now. After all, a Statute normally comes after international agreement, so that one can ratify the agreement, not the other way round.

As I said in Committee, all the practical international shipping agreements that have been reached have followed and not preceded the practice. I do not see any chance of getting an international agreement between a number of countries for schemes of control of this nature until anyhow some of the leading maritime powers—and we are the leading maritime power—have taken the step of putting such a scheme into practice and gained experience of it. It would be very difficult to get an international agreement conjured up in vacuo, so to speak.

I have spoken long enough—possibly too long—to explain the Government's point of view about this matter. I hope that the Opposition will accept anyhow the principle that what we are trying to does right.

Mr. Mellish

If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to point out, first, that we did not consider that cur Amendment was a wrecking one. We believed that it dealt only with the narrow point in regard to the type of equipment that should be used in the shin s. With regard to whether there should be orders, we agree that some system should be devised to deal with safety

The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not deal with the point of whether there had been consultations with the people who count—masters, the Merchant Navy Officers' Association, and so on. All of this has been ignored. I say frankly to the Minister and the House that our Amendment did not come from Transport House, thought up by some political pundit. It was put down at the request of those who are responsible for the Merchant Navy Fleet. That being so, in accordance with what I said earlier, because we cannot vote on our own Amendment we shall vote against the Clause.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Merton and Morden)

There is one small point about which I am not clear. I was interested in the remarks of my hon and gallant Friend about the case of the smaller vessels which are not fitted with the specified equipment and how he envisage; an order will work in that in effect, they will be debarred from using the bigger channels and will be allowed to use the ones with less water so that they can move about without endangering shipping.

There may be a small vessel not fitted with the specified equipment which would there 'ore be debarred from entering harbour under certain conditions of visibility. How would it know whether or not it was allowed to enter? It could assume that, visibility being limited, it should keep to one side, but I do not follow the procedure proposed because the vessel, not having the specified equipment, would not be able to get in touch with the shore and there would be no signals on land to indicate to it what it must do. How would it know what to do?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

My hon. Friend has been in the Navy himself and will know that there are such things as sailing directions in which one finds various instructions about the use of harbours. No doubt there will be notices to mariners about control of movement in harbours and stating that, generally speaking, when visibility is at a certain level, a certain channel must not be entered by ships which cannot communicate with the control station.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 20, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert: (c) empowering such person as may be specified in the order to give directions for securing that ships within the harbour or harbours to which the scheme relates or the approaches thereto move only at specified

times or during specified periods and to or from specified places, through specified areas, along specified routes or through specified channels; (d) empowering such person as may be specified in the order, in a case in which it appears to him expedient so to do by reason of restriction of visibility by the weather or by the presence of dust or smoke, to prohibit a ship from entering the harbour (or, as the case may be, both or one of the harbours) unless the ship is fitted with such equipment as may be so specified, being—

  1. (i) radio navigational aids (as defined by section 36 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949) of a kind conforming to requirements or standards laid down or recommended by or under any international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party or to standards that have been recommended by any international conference and to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have signified their approval; or
  2. (ii) apparatus of such a kind as aforesaid for transmitting information from the ship or receiving information transmitted thereto.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

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

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 142.

Division No. 37.] AYES [9.11 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Dalkeith, Earl of Hiley, Joseph
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Dance, James Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Allason, James Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Hirst, Geoffrey
Anderson, D. C. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Arbuthnot, Sir John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Holland, Philip
Ashton, Sir Hubert Doughty, Charles Hollingworth, John
Atkins, Humphrey Duncan, Sir James Hornby, R. P.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Duthie, Sir William (Banff) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Barlow, Sir John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Barter, John Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Batsford, Brian Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hughes-Young, Michael
Bidgood, John C. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hutchison, Michael Clark
Biffen, John Farr, John Iremonger, T. L.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Finlay, Graeme Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bishop, Sir Patrick Fletcher-Cooke, Charles James, David
Bourne-Arton, A. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Jennings, J. C.
Box, Donald Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Braine, Bernard Gibson-Watt, David Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Brewis, John Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Glover, Sir Douglas Kimball, Marcus
Bryan, Paul Goodhart, Philip Kirk, Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Goodhew, Victor Kitson, Timothy
Butcher, Sir Herbert Grant-Ferris, R. Lambton, Viscount
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert Green, Alan Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Cary, Sir Robert Grosvenor, Lord Robert Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Channon, H. P. G. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lindsay, Sir Martin
Chataway, Christopher Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Linstead, Sir Hugh
Chichester-Clark, R. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Litchfield, Capt. John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Harris, Reader (Heston) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Cleaver, Leonard Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Loveys, Walter H.
Cooke, Robert Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Cooper, A. E. Harvie Anderson, Miss McAdden, Sir Stephen
Costain, A. P. Hastings, Stephen McLaren, Martin
Coulson, Michael Hay, John McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Critchley, Julian Henderson, John (Cathcart) MaClay, Rt. Hon. John
Curran, Charles Hendry, Forbes Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)
McMaster, Stanley R. Pym, Francis Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Quennell, Miss J. M. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Maitland, Sir John Ramsden, James Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Marshall, Sir Douglas Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Ridsdale, Julian Turner, Colin
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Russell, Sir Ronald Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Scott-Hopkins, James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Miscampbell, Norman Shaw, M. Vane, W. M. F.
Montgomery, Fergus Skeet, T. H. H. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morgan, William Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Vickers, Miss Joan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Speir, Rupert Walder, David
Neave, Airey Stainton, Keith Walker, Peter
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Stevens, Geoffrey Wall, Patrick
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Steward, Harold (Stockport, S) Ward, Dame Irene
Osborn, John (Hallam) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Webster, David
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Storey, Sir Samuel Wells, John (Maidstone)
Page, John (Harrow, West) Studholme, Sir Henry Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Summers, Sir Spencer Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Tapsell, Peter Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Partridge, E. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Wise, A. R.
Peel, John Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.) Woodhouse, C. M.
Pitman, Sir James Teeling, Sir William Worsley, Marcus
Pitt, Dame Edith Temple, John M. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Pounder, Rafton Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton) TFXLERS FOR THE AYES:
Prior, J. M. L. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Mr. MacArthur and
Mr. Jasper More.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pentland, Norman
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Hilton, A. V. Popplewell, Ernest
Bacon, Miss Alice Holt, Arthur Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Barnett, Guy Houghton, Douglas Probert, Arthur
Beaney, Alan Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood Hoy, James H. Randall, Harry
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Benson, Sir George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Blackburn, F. Hunter, A. E. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blyton, William Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Boardman, H. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Janner, Sir Barnett Ross, William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.) Jeger, George Silkin, John
Bowles, Frank Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Bradley, Tom Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Skeffington, Arthur
Brockway, A. Fenner Kelley, Richard Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C) King, Dr. Horace Small, William
Callaghan, James Lawson, George Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Lee, Frederick (Newton) Snow, Julian
Cliffe, Michael Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, Percy Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Cronin, John Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Steele, Thomas
Dalyell, Tarn McBride, N. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Stonehouse, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Stones, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Manuel, Archie Swingler, Stephen
Dempsey, James Mapp, Charles Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Diamond, John Mason, Roy Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dodds, Norman Mellish, R. J. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Come Valley) Mendelson, J. J. Thornton, Ernest
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Millan, Bruce Thorpe, Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Milne, Edward Tomney, Frank
Fitch, Alan Mitchison, G. R. Wade, Donald
Fletcher, Eric Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Warbey, William
Foley, Maurice Mulley, Frederick Weitzman, David
Forman, J. C. Neal, Harold White, Mrs. Eirene
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Whitlock, William
Galpern, Sir Myer Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Gourlay, Harry O'Malley, B. K. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Grey, Charles Oswald, Thomas Winterbottom, R. E.
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Owen, Will Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Harman, William Pargiter, G. A. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Harper, Joseph Parker, John
Hayman, F. H. Parkin, B. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 17, after "specifying", insert: (unless the said scheme is expressed by the order to have effect at all times)". In line 18, leave out "the said scheme" and insert "it".

In line 21, leave out from "effect" to "and" in line 22.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, at the end to insert: (f) specifying the place at which the equipment by means of which the said scheme is to be put into effect is to be installed, if it is to be installed on land, or, if it is to be installed in a ship or vehicle, the place at which the ship or vehicle is to be moored or stationed. This Amendment moves on to rather a different point, because we are now concerned with the rules and controls in relation to equipment required by the control authority, as opposed to equipment in the sea-going ships. When we were discussing the previous Amendment the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that it was still not clear which was which. I can only tell him that I am assured by the lawyers that there is no room for doubt—and who am I to challenge their views on this matter. It is unfortunate that we have not yet reached the stage where we can use in the Bill those technical terms which we use when we are discussing these matters. It is partly for that reason that this provision is difficult to follow.

The substantial part of the Amendment arises from our conclusion, on reflection after the Committee stage, that there might be circumstances in which it would be more convenient or economical to instal the control equipment afloat, in a pilot vessel moored at the entrance to the harbour, in a light vessel, or in a vessel which can be moored in certain places at certain times. We thought that we ought to make provision to cover these eventualities, and that is the reason for the Amendment.

Commander Pursey

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to fitting installations ashore or at the end of a pier or on a pilot vessel. Will he tell us what equipment he has in mind? Surely that question does not arise in respect of radio telephony. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman radar in mind? Is the idea that radar will be made compulsory for all ports? I do not suggest that a port authority could—I pose this question to get the matter clear on the record—but if a port authority put up a reasonable argument that it could do what was required by the use of radio telephony only, because of the distance or the width of the channel, would that be accepted?

The Parliamentary Secretary knows as I do that radar has many advantages, but in close waters and narrow channels it can be deceptive. Pilots in difficult navigable channels would ignore radar. So what is the position, if there is a compulsory order for radar to be used ashore and in ships, and the pilots would not use it?

Dr. King

As I said earlier, this Amendment was made because we were troubled about the ambiguity over the two kinds of equipment specified; the land equipment, about which we thought the Minister has the right to make exact specifications, and the much more limited specified equipment which we said ought to be on the ships. I suggested earlier that this Amendment removes that ambiguity. But it would be better if we took all the subsections relating to the scheme and grouped them together, away from those relating to ships, otherwise there may be some ambiguity about the kind of ship to which reference is made.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

With the permission of the House I will reply. I would say to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) that if one has the advantage, as I have, of getting the Clause in its modified form typed out complete—I gave copies to hon. Members opposite—it appears fairly clear. I cannot reiterate too often to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull (Commander Pursey) that no one is compelled to have any equipment. It is for them to take the initiative and ask to operate a scheme, as has been done already by some of our great progressive ports.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says radar in certain circumstances can be unsatisfactory, particularly where there is high ground. That is one reason why it is necessary, if the Government are to back a scheme, to have certain powers of control over the equipment used. It is correct for my right hon. Friend to take powers to specify the nature of equipment. So much depends on the nature of equipment. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman—perhaps he has done so already—to visit Gravesend or Sheerness—he could easily arrange this with the responsible authority—and go to one of the control stations so as to see what is going on. He would find that there is a wonderful radar picture extending right up the river, and big ships and small can be picked out with fascinating accuracy.

The hon. Member for Itchen must not assume that these stations are manned entirely by landsmen. They become landsmen, but they have plenty of nautical experience. That is why power is taken under this statutory scheme under the order to specify the training qualifications of the people operating them. Naturally, the shore station will have to have radio telephonic equipment of such frequency as to communicate with ships. Otherwise the whole scheme would fail from the beginning.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, in page 20, line 31, after "punishment", insert "(i)".

The next group of Amendments are all drafting Amendments and are connected with the penal provisions of the Bill. I should like to make clear that these Amendments have no bearing whatever on Amendments which we shall be discussing shortly, one from the Opposition and one in the names of my hon. Friends, on the actual sanctions to be imposed by the penal provisions. These nine Amendments are very involved, but they do not alter the substance of what is proposed in connection with the penal Clauses 18, 19 and 20.

Mr. Speaker

It is all right for all of them to be discussed together if that be the wish of the House.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These Amendments simply allow for the sub-division of paragraph (c) on page 20 which is carried into two new paragraphs. That was the change on which the House divided a short time ago. They also allow for the penalties to be imposed for contravention of the provisions of paragraph (b). This was a point which was overlooked in the original wording.

Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are necessary to extend paragraph (g) on page 20 in Clause 18 so that a control of movement order can specify contravention of paragraph (b) or either or both of the new paragraphs into which paragraph (c) has now been split. The further seven Amendments are minor consequential changes which depend on the first two Amendments.

Mr. Mellish

We accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and hope that it will work out all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 33 leave out from "and" to "of" in line 35 and insert: (ii) in the event of failures, in the case of ships, to comoly with a provision of the order having effect by virtue of paragraph (b) above or of contraventions, in the case of ships, of prohibitions imposed under a provision of the order having effect by virtue of paragraph (d) above. In page 21, line 20, leave out "therein mentioned" and insert: mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) thereof". In page 21, line 21, leave out from second "of" to first "of" in line 23 and insert: such a failure or contravention as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) thereof". In page, 21, line 28, after "a", insert "failure or".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

Dr. King

I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, to leave out "six" and to insert three".

The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce from six months to three months the time for which a captain may be sent to gaol for disobeying a control of movement order. We endeavoured to remove it altogether in Committee. We found that this Amendment was the only way in which we could successfully raise the matter on Report, ant I imagine that that is why the admirable Amendment to line 28 has not been called.

My own reactions in Committee to the penal provisions of the Clause were, as I expected, he reactions of every captain of every vessel who has considered the Bill. It remains a grave error of judgment and wisdom in the Clause to subject the captain to criminal proceedings, and I still hope that the Government will accept this modest Amendment and even give consideration to taking out the criminal provisions altogether. All we can do at the moment is to amend the provisions which would make it possible to send a master of a ship to gaol for six months.

Let me make it quite clear that no one wishes to mitigate the punishment imposed on the master of a ship for a grave offence, but that is already covered by law. I listed the provisions in Committee. If the master of a ship commits a grave offence, Acts of Parliament decide that he shall be punished. In the Clause we are adding to this professional body the danger of a new criminal offence. We think that throughout we have spoken on this matter for the profession of ships' masters, and I have a letter from the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers Association in which they particularly protest against the penal provisions of the Clause.

Attached is a letter which they sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, from which I quote: I am sorry that the Harbours Bill, as amended by Standing Committee F, still contains a Clause permitting imprisonment on indictment as a penalty for infringement of a control order. We have, in fact, received quite a number of protests about this particular provision creating a new offence for which masters can be imprisoned. In our view this will establish a precedent which may well be quoted if and when we have to protest against harsh treatment in foreign ports". This is a most important argument. In the earlier debate, when we were talking about equipment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to "justice" in Ghana. If we impose imprisonment for six months on ships' masters in our own ports, there is no knowing what may happen to British captains who break some law of some other country in some other ports. This will be used by the foreign Power as justification for their action. I have a protest from the Merchantile Marine Service Association. A letter from its General Secretary ends: In conclusion. I am directed to repeat the expression of extreme concern already voiced on our behalf at the Ministry's failure to inform us in advance of the contents of a Bill of such importance to our members". He asks that in future they be consulted.

I am certain that if the professional organisations of the ships' masters of this country had been consulted early in the working out of the Bill the provisions about which we complain here would not have remained in it. We should not make captains vulnerable, and defensibly vulnerable, when they commit offences in other ports. If a captain does anything unprofessional, whether in obedience to a control of movement order or against it is beside the point. He will be punished for unprofessional conduct.

Throughout our debates in Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary was with us on this matter, although he is too stubborn to say so. He said in Committee that he understood our fears. He said: Prosecution for disobeying an order would fail if the master could show that he had good reason for thinking that compliance with the order would imperil his ship. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary had said: …I am equally certain that neither the master nor the pilot would take the slightest notice of them"— control orders— if they thought the ship would be endangered in the process. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then said: A master cannot be held responsible for anything that happens to his ship unless it is as a result of his negligence and default".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964, c. 437–42.] If the captain is negligent and commits a fault he will be punished in the ordinary course of events. If the offence is grave enough to warrant criminal proceedings, that would happen whether or not we have this Clause.

I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that the profession for which I am pleading feels this deeply. The members of that profession object, because of the commission of an act which might be committed by a master carrying out the best traditions of his profession and protecting his ship by disobeying a control of movement order, to being placed in jeopardy on indictment for a criminal offence. The Minister should at least accept the Amendment to limit the punishment to three months' imprisonment, although between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he should delete this punishment altogether.

Commander Pursey

I support the Amendment and I will bring forward further evidence to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). The Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association has also been in touch with me and has pointed out that it has been disappointed that our efforts to delete the provision of imprisonment as a penalty for infringement of an order did not succeed in Committee. The Association states in a letter: We are particularly perturbed about the many red herrings drawn across the trail when the question of the responsibility of Masters was being discussed in connection with the proposed imprisonment penalty… The Association further argues that to relate infringement of a control order to the question of masters being drunk, reluctance to use new equipment and hazarding ships had given the Association an entirely new picture of what was apparently being attempted by the Bill. I believe that these penalties should be included in merchant shipping legislation and not in a Measure of this sort and in this way.

9.45 p.m.

The Association also says this: It now seems to us that the Minister wants to take powers so as to deal with professional offences and it surprises us that this should be attempted when we have a tripartite working party already considering proposals for the revision of the Merchant Shipping Act generally under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport. In another letter the Association says this: On the subject of imprisonment, apart from the possible international repercussions, the Harbours Bill, if enacted in its present form, would create the anomalous position whereby, in areas where a control scheme was in operation, non-compliance with a direction of the harbour master could result in imprisonment, whereas, in areas with no scheme, the maximum penalty was probably a fine of £5. This makes the position farcical. On the one hand, a fine of £5 is imposed. On the other, for the same offence, admittedly under different conditions, but not conditions for which the master is responsible, he may be sent to prison for six months.

This argument ties up with previous existing regulations. I do not wish to weary the House at this time of night with undue historical details. After all, harbour, dock and pier legislation is still based on the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, which from time to tine we had to call in aid in Committee. Section 53 of that Act provides the penalty to which a master of a ship may be subject if he fails to comply with the directions of a harbour master, which is exactly what the position will be when the Bill is enacted. This has a long history. The provision is in the fallowing terms: The master of every vessel within the harbour or dock…shall regulate such vessel according to the directions of the harbour master…and any master of a vessel who, after notice of any such direction by the harbour master served upon him, shall not forthwith regulate such vessel according to such direction shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. This or a corresponding provision is to be found in the Private Acts of practically all United Kingdom harbour authorities. In the Port of London Act, 1962, the Authority took the opportunity to increase the various penalties for breach of regulations to bring them more into line with the present-day value of money. Under the provisions of this Act, the maximum penalty on ships' masters not complying with the direction of the dock master in London—the same offence again—was increased from £20 to £50. At other ports it would seem that the maximum penalty is generally still of the order of £20 only. In the byelaws made by many port authorities the maximum fine for the infringement of any regulation is often only £5.

The powers of a harbour master are already quire wide, and non-compliance with a prohibition or direction given under a control of movement order under the Bill might not be any more serious a matter than the non-compliance with a direction given by a harbour master under his existing powers. Section 52 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, which is still in force, provides that— The harbour master may give directions for all or any of the following purposes… I will not read all the purposes in detail. The first one is for regulating the time at which vessels shall enter—that is one of the objects of this Bill. Another is for regulating the position in which any vessel shall take in or discharge its cargo. A third is for regulating the manner in which any vessel entering a harbour shall be dismantled—that is not in the Bill. Others are for removing unserviceable vessels and for regulating the quantity of ballast.

I submit that to introduce a penalty of six months' imprisonment is out of all relation to penalties imposed for similar offences over a long period of years, yet—and the Parliamentary Secretary called this in aid in another connection—we are supposed to be the leading maritime nation. Does the Minister no longer trust the masters of ships? These men are among the most important individuals we have today. They are responsible for big carriers of bulk cargo, large tankers, and the like, and a mistake on their part could wreck a ship and cost thousands, if not millions, of pounds.

These officers ought not to labour under the possibility of six months' imprisonment being imposed by a bench of magistrates and others who—and I do not criticise them—may have no technical knowledge. It is not sufficient for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that as a defence the master of a ship can plead that he refused to obey a certain order because he thought that to obey might be to endanger his ship. There is no new offence created by this Measure that justifies any imprisonment of a master—certainly not six months' imprisonment—and we have tabled this Amendment in order to try to get the Minister and the Government to look at this subject again. If this provision were to go on the Statute Book it would be a standing disgrace to the Tory Government and an infliction on the masters in the Merchant Service that they would never forget.

Mr. David James

Replying to a debate on a similar Amendment in the Committee, my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said: I can say at once that we certainly do not regard this Amendment as one that would wreck the Clause, and if it is the wish of the Committee that the lesser penalty shall be accepted, we will bow to the will of the Cornmittee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 476.] Most unfortunately, the Committee expressed no such will, so that he did not have to bow to an expression of opinion.

I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been eloquently, and somewhat lengthily, put, but I would stress, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said, that this situation could arise out of a genuine professional difference of opinion as to where the safety of a ship lay. I hope that, in this context, my hon. and gallant Friend will bow to the will of the House which, I think, has been very freely and fairly expressed.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I support what has been said on both sides in asking my hon. and gallant Friend to think about this again. As a Member with a substantial prison in my constituency, I put it to him: Does he really know what prisons are all about, if he is thinking of suggesting six months' imprisonment for a master of a great merchant ship? It is really too ridiculous, having regard to the professional experience of these men.

I go the whole way with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) in his remark about the professional status of ship masters. My only difference of opinion is with the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) when he speaks of £5 as a possible penalty. In my view, we should have a substantial penalty in the Clause, but I think we should take out all mention of imprisonment. It is completely unsuited to this matter.

Mr. Jeger

I add my plea to the Minister to accept the Amendment. Considering the scale of punishments, we see at once that the principal punishment which a master would suffer would be the loss of his career after he came out of prison. That would be far more serious to him than whether he spent three months or six months actually in prison. His career would be gone. He would have a black mark against him and never again be able to pursue his calling.

If the Minister is looking for retribution for any damage caused by an accident, then, of course, six months' imprisonment is far too light and the fine is far too small. If he is looking at the matter from the point of view of punishment, conviction and even the very minimum term in prison is the real punishment. It will damage the man's career in later life.

I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of something he said in Committee, though not directly on the question of punishment: Having been brought up in a far more rigidly disciplined Service than is proposed under this scheme, I often received advice from my superiors, in fact, almost continually—but it did not necessarily prevent one doing what one pleased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th December, 1963; c. 43.] It may well happen that the master of a ship receives advice which conflicts with his owe judgment and thereafter an accident occurs.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether, but for the grace of God, he might not have suffered from the provisions which he is now recommending to the House.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) and for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) have not, I think, read Clause 20, which is related to this subject Clause 20 makes perfectly clear that a good defence to a charge under this Part of the Bill is that the master of the ship had reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction or, as the case may be, the prohibition would be likely to imperil the ship or that in the circumstances compliance with the direction or…the prohibition was impracticable". I do not think that we need to concern ourselves very much with the person who innocently offends against one of these control of movement orders. It is extremely unlikely that he would be prosecuted at all, and, if he were, he could produce that defence and be acquitted. This is the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) who told us over and again that masters were all very responsible and reputable people. This being so, it is extremely unlikely that they will come up against this penalty.

The penalty is a maximum penalty on trial on indictment. If I may say so, it is most misleading of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that in many cases the offence would only be much the slime as the case of a man who incurred a fine of £20 for disobeying a harbourmaster. So it might be, but in that case I should have sufficient confidence in our courts to believe that a comparable penalty would be imposed, not the maximum.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why masters of ships should have the shadow of imprisonment hanging over their heads. They have already. So have Members of Parliament. They, too, have the shadow of two years' imprisonment hanging over them if they, drive a vehicle dangerously, and this is a direct parallel to what we are talking, about.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business may entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Question vain proposed, That "six" stand part of the Bill.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) rightly pointed out that the heavy penalty in the case of a master of a ship would mean the loss of his career. Certainly it would mean the interruption of his career. But that is equally true about the man who becomes involved in one of the more serious traffic offences. Again the safety of life is at stake, and these sanctions are held in reserve to ensure that the safety regulations embodied in this Clause are observed.

The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Dr. King), asked why we were not prepared to reduce the term of imprisonment to throe months. A period of six months imprisonment is, in all normal cases, the shortest maximum term of imprisonment which is included in public legislation for offences regarded as sufficiently serious to merit trial by indictment instead of summary proceedings. I must make it clear—I am sure that hon. Members know this already—that the Home Office is the co-ordinating Government Department on such matters. We have been advised, not only that six months is consistent with precedent, but that there are no circumstances of a sufficiently exceptional nature to warrant departure in this case.

I wish to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Itchen about consultation. It is true that for many years there has been a custom of consulting the officers' associations and the seamen's union, and, indeed, the shipowners, on Amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act, including even its penal provisions. There is a long tradition of doing that. But it is not normal practice to consult outside organisations about prospective penalties in the normal cases of the administration of criminal justice penal provisions. This is not the normal custom of any Government. In a great many cases it would be inappropriate to do this. The question of when they should consult prospective offenders about what the penalties shall be is something which the Government must reserve the right to decide themselves.

I now turn to the real merits of the case. I stress that we are dealing with the maximum penalty which may be exacted in the case of a master of a ship who deliberately entered the harbour, after coming up the channel in a fog, after his ship had been told to wait, an act which could have, and which on occasions has had, the most disastrous consequences. The nearest parallel that I can suggest to that is disobedience of the rule of the road when such disobedience has been the result of wilful default. The maximum penalty for a master for that offence is two years' imprisonment. I cannot see that a wilful disobedience of one of these control of movement orders in circumstances which can lead to such great danger is any less heinous than a wilful disregard of the rule of the road. I cannot see the difference.

I am not all that impressed about the suggestion that we must not do anything unpleasant to foreign masters who disobey our laws because in retaliation something unpleasant may be done to the masters of our ships. Logically, it could be argued that we should never prosecute foreign tourists for traffic offences in case the country in question took it out of our tourists when they proceed abroad with their cars. I regard this as a close analogy. There is no need to let foreigners disregard these orders. I do not have the same distrust of the fairness of the great majority of foreign countries as hon. Members opposite seem to have.

We went through this in Committee upstairs and I need not labour the point again. I must, however, repeat that the suggestion by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that this could be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act is not sound. I explained at length the reason for this. One reason alone is that the masters of foreign vessels could not be prosecuted under that Act, which by its very nature applies only to British vessels. We should, therefore, have a position in which there was discrimination against the masters of our ships who were punished for disobedience of these orders, whereas the masters of foreign ships would go scot free.

For all these reasons, I do not think that the maximum—and I repeat that it is a maximum—penalty of six months is unreasonable for an offence which in its most grave form could have such terribly serious consequences.

Mr. Hoy

There is no political dispute between the two sides of the House on this matter. We made our case in Committee. I am just a little surprised that the Minister has gone back on his word in Committee, because it was he who offered to reduce the sentence from six to three months. He said, on 4th February: I can say at once that we certainly do not regard this Amendment as one that would wreck the Clause, and if it is the wish of the Committee that the lesser penalty should be accepted we will bow to the will of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th February, 1964; c. 476.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself offered to reduce it to three months. His only reason for changing his mind is that his Department has been in contact with the co-ordinating committee of the Home Department, which regards six months as a neat little sentence which conforms with sentences for other crimes, and because of this he insists upon six months.

We cannot accept the reasons given tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary for his insistence upon six months any more than we did in Committee. I hope that when we go into the Lobby those hon. Members opposite who feel like many others of us will come in with us

in opposition to the Minister's insistence upon this penalty.

Question put, That "six" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 128.

Division No. 38.] AYES [10.8 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Harris, Reader (Heston) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Allason, James Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Anderson, D. C. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Arbuthnot, Sir John Hastings, Stephen Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Hay, John Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Atkins, Humphrey Henderson, John (Cathcart) Partridge, E.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Hendry, Forbes Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barlow, Sir John Hiley, Joseph Peel, John
Barter, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Batsford, Brian Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin Pounder, Rafton
Bidgood, John C. Holland, Philip Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bitten, John Hollingworth, John Prior, J. M. L.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hornby, R. P. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bishop, Sir Patrick Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bourne-Arton, A. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Box, Donald Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Braine, Bernard Hughes-Young, Michael Scott-Hopkins, James
Brewis, John Hutchison, Michael Clark Shaw, M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Iremonger, T. L. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Speir, Rupert
Bryan, Paul Jennings, J. C. Stainton, Keith
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Stevens, Geoffrey
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert Kaberry, Sir Donald Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Channon, H. P. G. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Studholme, Sir Henry
Chichester-Clark, R. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Summers, Sir Spencer
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kershaw, Anthony Tapsell, Peter
Cleaver, Leonard Kimball, Marcus Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Costain, A. P. Kitson, Timothy Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Coulson, Michael Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Teeling, Sir William
Critchley, Julian Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Curran, Charles Lindsay, Sir Martin Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of Linstead, Sir Hugh Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Litchfield, Capt. John Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Doughty, Charles Loveys, Walter H. Turner, Colin
Duncan, Sir James Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McAdden, Sir Stephen van Straubenzee, W. R.
Elliott, R. W. (Ncwc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Mac Arthur, Ian Vane, W. M. F.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn McLaren, Martin Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Farey-Jones, F. W. McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Vickers, Miss Joan
Farr, John Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Walder, David
Finlay, Graeme Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs) Walker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Wall, Patrick
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) McMaster, Stanley R. Ward, Dame Irene
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Webster, David
Gibson-Watt, David Maitland, Sir John Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Markham, Major Sir Frank Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gilmour. Sir John (East Fife) Marshall, Sir Douglas Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glover, Sir Douglas Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wise, A. R.
Grant-Ferris, R. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Green, Alan Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Woodhouse, C. M.
Gresham Cooke, R. Miscampbell, Norman Worsley, Marcus
Grosvenor, Lord Robert Morgan, William Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Neave, Airey
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Mr. Pym and Mr. Jasper More.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Blackburn, F. Carmichael, Neil
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Blyton, William Cliffe, Michael
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Boardman, H. Collick, Percy
Bacon, Miss Alice Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Barnett, Guy Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.) Cronin, John
Beaney, Alan Bradley, Tom Dalyell, Tam
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood Bray, Dr. Jeremy Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Benson, Sir George Callaghan, James Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Dempsey, James Kenyon, Clifford Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Diamond, John King, Dr. Horace Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Dodds, Norman Lawson, George Ross, William
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silkin, John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Julian (Aston)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Skeffington, Arthur
Evans, Albert Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Fitch, Alan McBride, N. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Fletcher, Eric McKay, John (Wallsend) Small, William
Foley, Maurice MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Snow, Julian
Forman, J. C. Manuel, Archie Sorensen, R. W.
Galpern, Sir Myer Mapp, Charles Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Gourlay, Harry Mellish, R. J. Spriggs, Leslie
Grey, Charles Mendelson, J. J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Millan, Bruce Storehouse, John
Hannan, William Milne, Edward Stones, William
Harper, Joseph Mitchison, G. R. Swingler, Stephen
Hayman, F. H. Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Mulley, Frederick Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, w.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Neal, Harold Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Hilton, A. V. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Thornton, Ernest
Holt, Arthur Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Wade, Donald
Houghton, Douglas O'Mailey, B. K. Weitzman, David
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Oswald, Thomas Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hoy, James H. Owen, Will White, Mrs. Eirene
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pargiter, C. A. Whitlock, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parker, John Wilkins, W. A.
Hunter, A. E. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Popplewell, Ernest Winterbottom, R. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Probert, Arthur Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Janner, Sir Barnett Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Jeger, George Randall, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Redhead, E. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Robertson, John (Palsley) Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.
Kelley, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (6).—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]