HC Deb 16 March 1964 vol 691 cc1074-87
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, in page 26, line 18, to leave out Clause 25.

Hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) challenged the wisdom of leaving this Clause in the Bill. In a short but cogent speech on the subject he drew attention to some of the difficulties to which this Clause might lead were it to be interpreted too literally by the courts.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and some of his hon. Friends sought at that time to defend the Clause. They were inclined to suggest that I had written my hon. Friend's speech. In fact, the source of the information with which my hon. Friend supported his arguments against the Clause may have been derived from one of the large harbour authorities.

There is nothing wrong in that. I think that one of the principal reasons for the Opposition's defence of the Clause was that the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association had not asked them to oppose it, from which they concluded, not naturally, that it enjoyed the support of all the harbour authorities.

This is not so. Indeed, we began to receive representations from a number of large harbour authorities against Clause 25 shortly after the Bill was published. In consequence, the Government have given careful consideration to the wisdom of retaining the Clause and have come to the conclusion that to do so would be a mistake. If the Clause were to remain, it might well throw doubt on the power of a harbour authority to levy different dues on different vessels according to the length and nature of their voyage. At present there is no doubt about the validity of this form of discriminatory due, because dues are specified by Statute, for example, in the Schedule to a Private Act.

When the Bill reaches the Statute Book, Clause 22 will have the effect of removing the protection to these practices which is afforded by Private Acts. If, therefore, Clause 25 were retained, the courts would doubtless be asked to see whether the phrase "in like circumstances" permitted a harbour authority to discriminate, for example, between coasting and foreign traffic. In the event of the court deciding against a harbour authority, all harbour authorities which discriminated in this way could then be involved in actions going back for six years under the terms of the Statute of Limitations.

Furthermore, I think that the House will agree that it is in the nation's interest that ports should be allowed to promote trade by offering preferential rates to large or regular users. Some harbour authorities already do this, but it certainly could be challenged if Clause 25 remained in the Bill.

On the other hand, port users will not be left without protection or safeguards. Anyone who feels that he is being unfairly treated has a remedy under Clause 27 and can appeal to the Council. I am sure that the House agrees that the Council can be relied upon to decide every objection on its merits and to see that justice is done between the users and the harbour authorities.

I fully appreciate that some authorities favour the retention of the Clause, as do many shipowners. On the other hand, most of the major port authorities, including the Docks Board, the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, have authorised me to say that they would be glad to see the Clause deleted.

To sum up, the case for deleting the Clause lies in the fact that "the avoidance of preference", as it used to be called, has become out-dated and is already largely a dead letter at many ports.

Perhaps I should make it clear, in conclusion, that the Government would certainly not countenance discrimination on the grounds of flag or nationality of the owner of the cargo, and, if we think it necessary, we shall be prepared to make this clear by an addition to the Bill. We are not yet satisfied, however, that it is necessary, since any port authority which attempted to discriminate on grounds of nationality would lay itself open for compulsory revision of its structure of dues under Clause 28. This is our case for asking the House to agree to the deletion of this Clause.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish

Unlike the Government we are consistent in this matter. The Government first of all put the Clause in the Bill, then in Committee affirmed their intention to keep it in the Bill, and now on Report have decided to take it out.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I must ask the hon. Member to recognise that I have never affirmed our intention to keep it in the Bill. I said that we agreed to it staying there but that we should consider the matter at a later stage.

Mr. Mellish

But the Government put it in the Bill. It is their Bill, and they started with it. There was no Government Amendment in Committee to take it out. It was still in the Bill in Committee. Now the Government have decided to take it out. Why? Because certain harbour authorities are anxious that it should be removed. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the P.L.A. and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Authority. But the Opposition are not acting as agents for the P.L.A. and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Authority. We shall do what we think is right.

It is known that some harbour authorities want the Clause retained. I will repeat an argument which we advanced in Committee. There is a serious danger if a National Ports Council, with Government funds available, is able to provide a great deal of money for certain harbours to be improved, because there may well be a tendency, that having been done, for other harbour authorities to use this power of preference to try to attract certain trade.

I am all for competition. I do not want to refer to the argument about resale price maintenance, which we shall hear this time next week when we shall have mach fun and games. I am all for private enterprise when it is genuinely private and genuinely enterprise. I am opposed in many respects to private monopoly. I want to see fair private enterprise and fair competition, and I believe that this Clause could ensure that there was not unfair competition.

The hon. and gallant Member said that the Clause was being withdrawn because of representations from the P.L.A. and others, but he did not give the arguments of those who wish to retain the Clause. I should like to hear them. No doubt they, too, have written to him. At any rate, I go on record as saying on behalf of the Opposition, that we shall object to the Clause being removed from the Bill and that, if necessary, we shall do so in the Division Lobby.

Mr. David James

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his very generous response on Clause 22. But I must admit at once that I am not so happy with the line which he is adopting over Clause 25. There is a long statutory history to this. Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, provided the original protection to the user, and this has been maintained in every Act since over a period of nearly over 120 years. I know that similar provisions were swept aside in the 1962 Act in respect of railways, bat the railway companies are in nothing like the same monopolistic position as are the ports. If, even in 1962, the Department thought it justifiable to maintain this safeguard against discrimination, it does not seem to me that there has been any radical change since.

Clause 35 repeals Section 30 of the 1847 Act and therefore removes any statutory safeguard which the port user has. Clause 25 was designed to improve the Section and to bring it up to date. Its removal means that the user has no safeguard at all. There are very genuine and sincere apprehensions among port users whether they will get a fair crack of the whip if the Clause is removed. As there was no particular desire in Com- mittee to remove the Clause, will not my hon. and gallant Friend at least consider leaving it in the Bill to be considered through all the stages—Second Reading, Committee and Report—in another place? His present proposal is being slightly bounced on us.

Dr. King

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, may I say for the record that the relations between the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Opposition have been the relations between the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Government? The Association has made its views on a number of issues known to bath sides of the House. We on this side have picked up whichever of those issues we thought were fair and square and have supported them. When we thought that they were wrong, we have opposed them.

I find it rather pathetic that the Parliamentary Secretary should now be praying in aid the harbour authorities. He managed to dissemble his love for them throughout I he Committee stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, at least some of the harbour associations had the view that Clause 25, which the Government put into the Bill—we did not put it into the Bill—was a good Clause.

Mr. Mellish

I understand that the majority of associations wanted it retained in the Bill.

Dr. King

The position is somewhat paradoxical. The Clause was introduced into the Bill. It was spoken against by only one member of the Standing Committee. Its retention was supported by the Opposition. The Minister himself said that the arguments were 50–50; he had a balanced opinion; he could not quite make up his mind. Now, converted by the eloquence of one single speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) in Committee, the Minister has absolutely changed his view. There has been nothing like it in Parliamentary history since "single-speech Hamilton". I would almost suggest that the hon. Member for Kirkdale, having secured such a signal triumph as to talk a major Clause out of a major Bill, should retire, as "single-speech Hamilton" did, for ever after for fear he spoils his triumph.

There are two issues. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned one. We are dealing with preferential rates. We are saying in the Clause that no dock can give unfair preference to one of its customers at the expense of another. I raised in Committee the question of foreign preference, because we are all agreed that, if there should be any sort of discrimination against foreigners, or discrimination against some foreigners in favour of other foreigners, that would be a bad thing.

8.0 p.m.

When we discussed this subject in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we had recently made a protest to Brazil, which had made such anti-foreign discrimination in its treatment of British ships. The Parliamentary Secretary said this: If this Clause was deleted, we should then have to consider very carefully whether a later Clause would be a sufficient safeguard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February. 1964; col. 516.] I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state categorically tonight whether he is satisfied that the later Clauses contain the safeguard against any suggestion of anti-foreign discrimination in the arrangements which our port and harbour authorities would make. Unless he is satisfied that there is no such danger, all members of the Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Kirkdale and the Parliamentary Secretary, were agreed that it would be a very bad thing that we should leave any loophole in our traditional position of having no anti-foreign discrimination.

I come to the unfair discrimination which there may be as a result of the Clause being deleted. I remind hon. Members of Clause 2 of the Resale Prices Bill, under which a supplier of goods will get into trouble— if he refuses to supply…goods to the dealer except at prices, or on terms or conditions as to credit, discount or other matters, which are significantly less favourable than those available to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances. The principle of Clause 2 of the Resale Prices Bill is the principle which, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. David James) told us, has been standard practice for British docks since the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. Why change? Why change it at a moment in the Government's history when in general trade they are making it an offence to make the kind of discrimination which has been forbidden in the docks and harbours industry since 1847? Now the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to delete from the Bill the Clause which carries on the position as it has been since 1847.

If the Clause is deleted, what is made unlawful in the Resale Prices Bill will be lawful under the Bill. Moreover, Clause 3 of the Resale Prices Bill condemns loss leaders. If this Clause is deleted from the Bill, loss leaders for docks and harbour authorities will be quite all right.

The Government are speaking with two voices. They were strong in Committee. What they did in Committee was inconsistent with what they are doing in the Resale Prices Bill. Now, because of a speech by one hon. Member, the Government are not only going against the Clause which they put into the Bill and not only coming down on the side which they did not come down in Committee, but they are running counter to their latest piece of legislation.

I said in Committee that, if a harbour authority treats one customer more favourably than it treats another, it is being unjust to the second customer. Behind the century of tradition of competition between dock and dock there has been a tradition of fair trade. There is no reason why, as we move to this new tremendous advance that we want to see in our docks and harbours, we should introduce anything which might make shady business and unfair competition possible between our various docks and harbours.

I am very disappointed that the Minister has decided to give way to the persuasive tongue of his hon. Friend and to remove the Clause from the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Kemptown will help us to keep the Clause in the Bill.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

I support my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James), who are trying to keep the Clause in the Bill. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has become a little intoxicated by the exuberance of his party's political propaganda. He has come to the view that modernisation must be applied in everything and because, as he said in Committee, the Clause or its ancestor goes back to Victorian times he thinks that must make it wrong.

This is not necessarily so, because the basis of the Clause was the desire to prevent that kind of cut-throat competition between port and port, between harbour and harbour, between person and person, that might cause the real modernisation of our docks and harbours not to have proper effect.

It has inherent in it another injustice. It must inevitably support the large harbour authority against the small one, for there is built into the large harbour authority a greater facility for giving preferences to passengers and ships than is so in the case of the small harbour authority.

The Parliamentary Secretary, very fairly, was a little worried about the effect of the phrase "in the like circumstances". He took the view that it might be something which the courts would have to decide, that there might be difficulty about their so deciding, and that in point of fact, because of the Statute of Limitations, the fact that one can go back six years in an action, all sorts of dreadful things might occur in the six years from the passing of the Bill.

We must remember that the Clause, or its ancestor, has been in operation for 125 years. The point has never arisen before and there is no earthly reason why it should arise now. It seems that the phrase is as clear a form of words as any draftsmen could possibly make. It means exactly what it says. Where differences occur they could be considered, but if one was considering one apple against one apple the result would be perfectly clear and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is a little pessimistic in envisaging the most diabolical results in our ports and the most terrible results in the free and efficient running of our harbours from the effect of these words.

It is curious to find that never once have the Government had a second look at what the Rochdale Committee said, because in paragraph 210(i) it explicitly stated that except in the case of dues on ships, goods and passengers, port authorities and other charging agencies should be free to arrange special terms in appropriate cases. The exception is there because if they are allowed complete freedom the whole of the great structure which the National Ports Council will be called into existence to deal with will be in serious jeopardy, according to the Rochdale Report.

Having looked at the matter again, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at it yet again, because my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that the Clause should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Hoy

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least have the courtesy to reply. In moving the deletion of the Clause the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not give the House any good reasons for its removal, but merely said that we had discussed the matter in Committee, that he had promised to look at it afresh and that, having done that—and remembering that his hon. Friend who originally moved to delete the Clause in Committee has not even taken the trouble to come here tonight—he had decided that the Clause must be deleted. There has not been a Parliamentary stage between the Committee proceedings and now, so is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he is moving the deletion of the Clause simply because he h is had some private conversations with two or three private or public docks?

The only sort of reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave why the Clause should be deleted was that three docks would rather it be removed. He is bound to Admit that the majority of docks approved of what he did in Committee, so why is he taking this step? When the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke in Committee he quoted more or less the same words which my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) quoted from the Rochdale Report. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary said: The Rochdale Committee did not, however, take this view."— that was, that a change should be made— It recommended that harbour authorities should not be free to make special arrangements and levy special charges, and that can be found in paragraph 210, sub-paragraph (i) of the Rochdale Report. That was one of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's arguments for retaining the Clause in Committee.

If one reads his speech on that occasion one sees that, like a good admiral, he covered his traces, because he said: …the arguments are pretty finely balanced… And he went on to point out that he wanted to consider the debate with his advisers. A little earlier in his speech on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary had said: On the other hand, a provision of this kind has been included in virtually all harbour legislation until now. The standard form can be found in Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. It will be seen from that—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further with that quotation?

Mr. Hoy

Yes. I was leading up to the point where, after my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) had asked, And not opposed by the harbour authorities?", the Parliamentary Secretary replied: I would not go so far as to agree with that. There have been a great many discussions between ourselves and the harbour authorities, and it would not be strictly true to say that the authorities were in full agreement with this Clause, but, at the same time, they have not had much chance with their private legislation because I do not think that they would have had much success if the Section to which I have lust referred had not been included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February, 1964; c. 515–7.] That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said and, having had his argument repeated to him, it will be interesting to see what he intends to do now. Whatever he does he must be prepared to stand by his word in Committee and retain the Clause, at least during this stage. Perhaps when he hives the Bill off to another place he may get them to delete it there. Considering the co-operation the Parliamentary Secretary received in Committee upstairs from hon. Members on both sides, he will, indeed, be dealing scurvily with the Committee if at this stage he deletes the Clause.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) was being fair to me when quoting my speech in Standing Committee on 6th February. I urged him to quote a little further, but he did not refer to my comment on that occasion to the effect that A Bill which was suitable in the early years of the reign of Queen Victoria is not necessarily suitable to this day and age".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 6th February, 1963, c. 516.] I said that after referring to Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847.

Mr. Hoy

I said that the Parliamentary Secretary had said that.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman quote me as having said that. However, the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) implied that the 1847 legislation had prevented discrimination of all sorts. That is not entirely so, because when I gave my reasons for deleting the Clause I said that the principle of discriminatory charging was safeguarded in many of the Schedules of private legislation which governed our ports, particularly the major ones.

Although I do not know, it may be true, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith said, that if one took a vote of all the statutory port authorities more would be in favour of retaining than deleting the Clause, but we must consider the effect on the general volume of traffic which comes in and goes out of the country. The ports in favour of its deletion and which are concerned about the idea of it remaining in the Bill account for the great majority of trade coming in and leaving the country. I could have added to the ports I mentioned which are anxious for the Clause to go. However, I do not rest my case entirely on the whims or wishes of the port authorities, no matter how great they are. I gave arguments—which, with great respect to the Opposition and to my hon. Friend, no one has answered—why we wanted the Clause to go, and why we thought that no harm would be done by letting it go.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) raised an important point. He asked me whether we thought that Clause 28 was a sufficient safeguard against discrimination against foreigners. We do think so, but, frankly, we are not quite certain whether it is necessarily the most convenient safeguard. It may be desirable to add a Clause to the Bill to deal with that specific point, but we are quite satisfied that, whether or not we add a Clause, the Clause as it stands will be a sufficient safeguard against differential charges on the basis of flag.

I am never particularly moved by arguments about consistency. I never gave any undertaking in Committee that we would keep this Clause at all; on the contrary, I stated as fairly as I could the arguments for and against retaining it, and said that between then and now we would very carefully consider whether to retain the Clause. I am sure that those who have read the proceedings of the Committee will agree that that was said.

As to our originally putting down the Clause, I do not think it foolish to change one's mind. It is quite true, as

the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) also indicated, that the reason the Clause went into the Bill at first was that our first instinct was to model the Bill as closely as possible on the Rochdale Report, and it was not until after the Bill was published that we realised some of the uncertainties and inconveniences that might result if the Clause remained—

Mr. Mellish

As Lord Rochdale has been mentioned, may I ask whether his Lordship was asked what he thought of the new intentions of the Government?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Not by me—but Lord Rochdale has not made any representations to us against the removal of the Clause.

On this question of consistency, it will be within the recollection of the House that when I gave way and agreed to reinserting the word "reasonable" no hon. Member opposite made any accusation of inconsistency.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 147.

Division No. 48.] AYES [8.13 p.m.
Ainsley, William Evans, Albert McKay, John (Wallsend)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) MacPherson, Malcolm
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Ginsburg, David Manuel, Archie
Bacon, Miss Alice Gourlay, Harry Mapp, Charles
Barnett, Guy Greenwood, Anthony Marsh, Richard
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mellish, R. J.
Beaney, Alan Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mendelson, J. J.
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Millan, Bruce
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Gunter, Ray Mitchison, G. R.
Benson, Sir George Hamilton, William (West Fife) Monslow, Warier
Blackburn, F. Harman, William Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Blyton, William Harper, Joseph Morris, John (Aberavon)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hayman, F. H. Moyle, Arthur
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. w.(Leics, S.W.) Harbison, Miss Margaret Mulley, Frederick
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hill, J. (Midlothian) O'Malley, B. K.
Bradley, Tom Hilton, A. V. Oswald, Thomas
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Holman, Percy Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Brockway, A. Fenner Houghton, Douglas Pargiter, G. A.
Brown, Bt. Hon. George (Belper) Hoy, James H. Pavitt, Laurence
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hunter, A. E. Pentland, Norman
Callaghan, James Hynd, H, (Accrington) Popplewell, Ernest
Chapman, Donald Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Prentice, R. E.
Cliffe, Michael Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Collick, Percy Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Probert, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jeger, George Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Randall, Harry
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rankin, John
Deer, George Kelley, Richard Redhead, E. C.
Dodds, Norman Kenyon, Clifford Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Doig, Peter King, Dr. Horace Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Driberg, Tom Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) Lipton, Marcus Robertson, John (Paisley)
Edelman, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) McBride, N. Ross, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Silkin, John
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) MacColl, James Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Warbey, William
Slater, Mr. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Stonehouse, John Weitzman, David
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Whitlock, William
Small, William Swingler, Stephen Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Wyatt, Woodrow
Sorensen, R. W. Thornton, Ernest
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wainwright, Edwin TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Peel, John
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Percival, Ian
Allason, James Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Arbuthnot, Sir John Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pitman, Sir James
Atkins, Humphrey Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pitt, Dame Edith
Barlow, Sir John Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Pounder, Rafton
Barter, John Hendry, Forbes Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Batsford, Brian Hiley, Joseph Quennel, Miss J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Biffen, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hocking, Philip N. Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Bishop, Sir Patrick Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin Roots, William
Bourne-Arton, A. Holland, Philip Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hooson, H. E. Russell, Sir Ronald
Box, Donald Hornby, R. P. Scott-Hopkins, James
Braine, Bernard Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Shaw, M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Skeet, T. H. H.
Buck, Antony Hughes-Young, Michael Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Bullus, Wing Commander Erie Iremonger, T. L. Stainton, Keith
Campbell, Gorton Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Stanley, Hon. Richard
Cary, Sir Robert Jackson, John Stevens, Geoffrey
Chataway, Christopher Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Stodart, J. A.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Jennings, J. C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Clarke. Brig, Terence (Portsmith, W.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Storey, Sir Samuel
Cleaver, Leonard Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Talbot, John E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Tapsell, Peter
Costain, A. P. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Coulson, Michael Kerby, Capt. Henry Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kerr, Sir Hamilton Temple, John M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox Kimball, Marcus Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Curran, Charles Kirk, Peter Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lambton, viscount Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lancaster, Col. C. G. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Touche, Rt. Hon, Sir Gordon
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lilley, F. J. P. Turner, Colin
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Linstead, Sir Hugh Vane, W. M. F.
Fell, Anthony Litchfield, Capt. John Vesper, Rt, Hon. Dennis
Fisher, Nigel Loveys, Walter H. Walder, David
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lubbock, Eric walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs) Wall, Patrick
Gardner, Edward Marten, Neil Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Whitelaw, William
Glover, Sir Douglas Mawby, Ray Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gower, Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Woodnutt, Mark
Gresham Cooke, R. Mills, Stratum Woollam, John
Grosvenor, Lord Robert Morrison, John Worsley, Marcus
Gurden, Harold Neave, Airey Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston) Page, Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Elliott.