TOLL BRIDGES

HC Deb 12 May 1964 vol 695 cc225-40

3.31 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to nationalise certain toll bridges without payment of compensation. It is well known that the Standing Orders of the House do not permit a private Member to move a Motion or to introduce a Bill which would involve a charge on the public revenue. This fact explains the confiscatory nature of the language which I use, although the more I have investigated this matter the stronger the case for confiscation seems to become.

For upwards of two years, I have been delving into the history of the five toll bridges with which my Bill would be concerned. I will refer to them briefly. Swynford Bridge, across the Thames from Swynford, in Berkshire, to Eynsham, in Oxfordshire, is on the A.4141. An old Act of Parliament, passed in 1767, exempted the income arising from the tolls on this bridge from all forms of local and national taxation by using words to the effect that the taxes, almost non-existent on the then existing ferry, would continue to apply to the bridge, but that it would not be liable to any greater assessment, tax, rent, rate duty, or payment whatsoever. That Act is still on the Statute Book and it means that the income from this bridge is completely free of all forms of taxation, rates and even Estate Duty.

The estimated yield from this bridge is £6,000 annually. The bridge has been in the hands of the Earl of Abingdon's family for 200 years. They sit tight and "keep mum" about it. I understand that the noble Lord is greatly in favour of an incomes policy in the national interest.

I refer next to Whitchurch Bridge, across the River Thames from Whitchurch, in Oxfordshire, to the Parish of Pangbourne, in Berkshire, on the B.471. This bridge was authorised by a 1792 Act, which is still on the Statute Book. The proprietors listed in the Act include the Rev. John Symonds Breedon, the Rev. Coventry Lichfield, D.D. and his wife Hannah, and the Rev. John Lichfield. The list sounds very much like the Macmillan family tie-up today. In parenthesis, may I say that in looking into these matters I have been struck forcibly by the highly developed acquisitive instincts of the aristocracy and the Church. Whatever the hereafter might hold in store, there is nothing like feathering one's nest in the herebefore.

Whitchurch Bridge is owned by the Whitchurch Toll Bridge Company. It is a private company, it is not registered anywhere and nothing can be discovered about it, except that it is very much like the sources of the Tory Party's funds. The charges on the bridge are 6d. for a car, 1s. for a lorry, and 1d. for pedestrians. I have a letter from a resident in Whitchurch who states that Abuse is thrown at anyone daring to walk or drive past the gate, including injured persons being rushed to our local doctor (1s. the toll, 2s. the prescription). I refer next to Whitney Bridge, which is across the River Wye between Whitney and Clifford, in the County of Hereford, on the A.438. This derives from an Act passed in 1780 and an amending Act in 1797 after the bridge had collapsed three times. It is now owned by the Whitney Bridge Trust, which is not registered under the terms of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, and no one, not even the Board of Trade, knows anything about it. But the same tax "racket" is involved in this one, too.

I come now to Aldwark Bridge, in Yorkshire, over the River Ure, about halfway between Boroughbridge and York. The original Act was passed in 1772, naming the proprietors and fixing the charges. Today's charges include ½d. for pedestrians, 1d, for cyclists, 2d. for motor cyclists, 9d. for cars and 1s. 6d. for lorries up to 2 tons and 9d. a ton thereafter. The wording of the Act states that the said bridge shall not be rated or assessed for or towards the payment of any land tax or any other parochial rate or tax whatsoever. The Minister of Transport told me on 15th April this year that this bridge was owned by the Yorkshire Farmers' Limited. I am a great friend of the farmers and, therefore, I was very interested in this. I discovered, however, that the bridge was sold by the Yorkshire Fanners in April, 1962. So the little fellow in the Ministry of Transport was two years out of date with his information. The bridge was sold to an unknown man from Leeds for a figure reputed to be £90,000. Lord Halifax, as vice-president of the Yorkshire Farmers, would presumably enjoy part of that little tax-free gain.

The particulars of the sale are fascinating. Through the energies of the Library staff, I managed to get hold of a brochure of the sale. It has a nice photograph of the bridge on the front and, in a box in red letters, it states: Exempted by Ancient Statute from any form of Income Tax and Rates. It also states inside: This sale, therefore, is possibly unique in that it affords the opportunity of acquiring an income which, irrespective of the normal tax liabilities of the owners, is not subject to rating, Income Tax, or any other form of tax. It goes on to say that the bridge is exempt from death duties and that Copies of Counsels' opinion are available for inspection at the offices of the chartered auctioneers. I have a copy of counsel's advice, too, and I quote from Mr. Stuart Bates, of 4 Pump Court, Temple, W.C.2: It follows, in my view, that it might be properly maintained on the death of a person who owned the bridge that the value of the bridge should not be brought in when computing the value of his estate for death duty purposes: That the bridge was exempt from death duties. There are further interesting comments in this brochure which I should like to inform the House about. It gives a breakdown of the total charges and the total income, and according to this, in the year ended 30th June, 1961, the net tolls income free of rates, taxes—anything was £2,016. It is explained that the Yorkshire farmers themselves use it to the extent of about £250 additional income; so the net income from this bridge is about £2,300 free of all kinds of tax. The charming lady who it the tollkeeper, Mrs. Wright, is paid a wage of £3 a week taxable income—plus her tied cottage, just to maintain the feudal element.

This bridge is used by the R.A.F. personnel at Linton-on-Ouse. I have had letters from airmen there and I should like to quote from one, from Senior Aircraftman Munro: I was obliged to pay 7s. 6d. a week in tolls when on night flying"— out of his own pocket— and, making four trips to Harrogate a day, correspondingly more. This is happening to many airmen on that R.A.F. station. While the airman pays tax on his few shillings a day he pays this tax-free income to the owners of the bridge.

I turn, finally, to Selby Bridge, over the River Ouse in Yorkshire, on trunk road A.19. This is the real bonanza. This is the real jackpot. Mr. Ferranti could hardly ask for more. This dates back to an Act of 1791, which set up the Selby Bridge Company. Pedestrians are charged ½d., cows 1d. apiece, every drove of hogs 6d. a score; and cars are 9d. each. According to the figures which I got from the Ministry of Transport a week or two ago, 6,800 vehicles a day were going across in August, 1963. That works out at £255 a day, or more than £ 90,000 a year gross.

The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), whom I see sitting there, estimated in 1962 that the net income from this bridge was £70,000 a year. That was challenged, and what he said then I repeat now—I will be glad to publicise the accounts of the company if they are prepared to send them to me.

The chairman of the company is Commander Percy—not our hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). This man lives at Hythe, in Hampshire, and he declares that this income is grossly exaggerated, but I am waiting for him to tell me what the true facts are.

I want to end on this note. At a time when old-age pensioners have their pensions reduced if they earn more than a few pounds a week, at a time when every worker in the country must submit every penny of his earnings to the rigorous scrutiny of P.A.Y.E., it is monstrous that this legalised private pillage of the public purse by a privileged few should be allowed to continue. The Government have officially informed me that they are prepared to do absolutely nothing about it. They have not the time nor the will nor the guts to get rid of this anachronism and injustice. They are quite happy to let these toll bridge proprietors have not only their pound of flesh but the whole carcase.

I hope that a Labour Government will put a stop to this nonsense, not because it is one of the commanding heights of the economy but because it is one of the typical murkier depths of it. I ask leave to bring in the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan (Howden)

I beg to oppose the Motion.

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is becoming something of a specialist, if not a very informed specialist, on toll bridges. The last time he spoke about them was in the Budget debate. He said that my constituent, Lord Halifax, enjoyed a large tax-free income from Selby toll bridge The next day, in a personal statement, he apologised to the House for the fact that his information had proved incorrect.

The House, of course, accepts statements of this sort in the spirit in which they are given, but as the original, untrue words in his speech were clearly meant to be as offensive as he could make them, which is very offensive indeed, I should have thought—and certainly many of my constituents cannot understand why the hon. Member did not—that he would have used that occasion, the occasion of his statement, to apologise personally to Lord Halifax. It is not too late now to do so personally, or by letter.

Much of the hon. Member's speech has been devoted to the anachronism of tax-free toll bridges. This is one thing about which the whole of this House would, I think—it would be about the only thing—agree with him. My particular constituency headache is, of course, the Selby toll bridge. Time and again, over the years, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), who is sentry at the other end of the bridge, and I have pressed the Government to do away with its tiresome tolls.

Where we disagree with the hon. Member is on how to get rid of them. The right and commonsense way to do so is to press ahead with the by-pass bridge which is already proposed. It would attract a good deal of the traffic off the present tell bridge and that would automatically reduce its inflated value. The bridge could then be bought reasonably and fairly from its present owners. My complaint, of course, as the Member for the constituency, is that the Government have taken too long to do this owing to their underestimate of the amount of traffic which the new bridge would take.

The hon. Member for Fife, West, on the other hand, says let the State take the bridge from its owners without compensation. But once States or Governments start robbing their citizens—[HON. MEMBERS: "Robbing whom?"]—of what, by the law of the land, is theirs they do not stop at toll bridges. Once Left-wing politicians get a taste of power this is a temptation they can never resist. The Labour Party's present plans for steel, road haulage and land all have an element of nationalisation without compensation.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

On a point of order. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) explained that it would not be in order for him to propose anything which involved imposing any money payments and that that would be a matter for the Government. Would you, therefore, confirm, perhaps, that he was in order and it would not have been in order for him to propose compensation?

Mr. Speaker

No point of order arises for me.

Mr. Bryan

The hon. Member's Motion is more important than he realises, because it comes at a time when the whole country is thirsting to know exactly what Labour would nationalise. Therefore, his Motion, like Selby Bridge, has an inflated value. When the Prime Minister tried to get some clarification on this very subject from the Leader of the Opposition that right hon. Gentleman referred him to Signposts to the Sixties. About that pamphlet the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said: Give this document to a man like Ian Mikardo and you could have this country's industry transformed. But give it to someone like Woodrow Wyatt and you won't get very far. Looking for a more precise guide to the Labour Party's policy on nationalisation in general and toll bridges, of course, in particular, I read the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself. This is what he says: So, with steel, road transport, water, with the creation of newly publicly-owned industries, with State-owned factories in backward or declining industries, with control of State money that is put in, with State industries or participation, with the expansion of the productive powers of publicly-owned industries, with the right of the State to intervene in monopolies, take-over bids and mergers, you have there a very substantial expansion of public ownership. Just to make sure that we understand this, the right hon. Gentleman says: When we say extend public ownership in any industry"—

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like you to give the House your advice and guidance. The Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) deals with one subject matter only—toll bridges. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) to give the House a preview of his constituency election speech?

Mr. Speaker

I have heard nothing out of order yet.

Mr. Bryan

I was going on to say that in case we did not understand the import of what I quoted from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, he went on to say at another time: When we say extend public ownership in any industry, we mean take over, nationalise. In order not to mislead the House, I must admit that this was way back in 1961, before the right hon. Gentleman was blinding the electorate with science. Since then he has only just about once mentioned this subject.

In an unguarded moment when the right hon. Gentleman had just became Leader of the Opposition, he said: Clause Four is the"— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak about toll bridges."] Toll bridges are things we agree about. It is nationalisation without compensation that we do not agree about. That is, therefore, what we are debating.

If I may go on with the quotation from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, he said: Clause Four is the position of the whole party. It is the policy of the whole party. If the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. William Warbey (Ashfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that there were rather special rules governing the type of speech which could be made on the occasion of the presentation of a Ten Minutes Rule Bill and that the speaker for the opposition must make his case for opposition to the Bill, and that that is his sole function.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is entitled to oppose leave, and until the observation of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), amidst some noise a moment ago, I thought that he was in order. On the principle of the argument, what is asked for here is a measure of nationalisation. A swelling of nationalisation is a general peril in respect of that argument. This is one pimple on the surface of it. But the hon. Member slightly deflected from that course a moment ago and said that he was agreed about that particular pimple.

Mr. Bryan

If I may go on, if the Leader of the Opposition means what he says in these passages, and I am afraid that he does, then nationalisation, including nationalisation of toll bridges, is by far the most important feature in the Labour programme. In fact, it is the Labour Party's trump card. In this opinion-forming pre-General Election period, one would have thought that the faithful would be talking about nothing else. But Thursdays come and go—

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, once an hon. Member has said that he agrees with the proposal in the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, he has placed himself out of order in opposing it, which is the only thing that he is entitled to do.

Mr. Speaker

Unless my attention was less accurate than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, at some stage of his speech the hon. Member for Howden was saying, "Although we agree about toll bridges, we do not agree with the method proposed". That keeps him within the principle of opposing.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman certainly said that at one stage. A moment ago, when hon. Members called to him to speak about toll bridges, he said, "I am not speaking about that, because we are agreed on that."

Mr. Speaker

I do not propose to argue about that. It is a false point. It is true that the hon. Member said, "Toll bridges is a subject matter about which we agree"—not in those words, but that is the way in which he made the point. But that did not detract at any stage from what he said earlier—"We do not agree with the method in relation to that subject matter."

Mr. Bryan

As I was saying, Thursdays come and go. We in this House listen for the announcement of Supply days on nationalisation demanded by the Opposition Front Bench. We listen to questions from restless back benchers pressing the Leader of the House for the same thing.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Member should have a better brief than that.

Mr. Bryan

One would think that the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps in a week-end speech, would have devoted some attention to these things, instead of which his Left wing has to be content with bellicose speeches about Cyprus and his brand new ideas about the tactical handling of heavy tanks in non-tank country.

In his pre-leadership days the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak about toll bridges."] I shall be coming back on the bridge at any moment. In those days the Leader of the Opposition complained that his party, in its presentation of nationalisation, was combining the minimum intention with the maximum of provocation. He said: Instead of our previous" —

Hon. Members

The hon. Member is reading.

Mr. Bryan

I am at the moment quoting the Leader of the Opposition. He said: Instead of our previous defensive and almost apologetic postures, we shall be able to show that by our nationalisation policy, and only by that policy, can we carry out a plan essential for Britain's future. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Fife, West is saying about toll bridges.

Since then the Leader of the Opposition has learnt to advocate nationalisation exactly the other way round, with the maximum of intention and the minimum of provocation. He has been listening, of course, to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who, after the last General Election, very frankly, but rather sadly, said: It has been proved in the election that wherever a candidate stood in a constituency containing a nationalised industry, he had to lay off the subject of public ownership. All this is highly pertinent to the Motion that we are debating, because the Motion's importance depends on the degree of support the Labour Party is to give to the principle of nationalisation without compensation. But the trouble is that the hon. Member is just as much in the dark as we are. Today, the hon. Member is flying a kite. He is testing the opinion of his party, and his hon. Friends appear to be with him. He is giving a lead. He is tired of the Duke of Plazatoro type of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to nationalisation, and the one-man-band on everything else.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West on the purity of his Socialism and his inspiration in adding to the already existing list of objects for nationalisation without compensation this new subject of toll bridges. He is inspired by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who said—appropriately enough—when he was talking to the Scottish Labour Party: Those who thought we were going to abandon Socialism will find that Labour Party policy will present new forms of public ownership. In fact, the hon. Member for Fife, West, has taken the text of his speech today from the writings of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who said: Socialism without public ownership is nothing but a fantastic apology.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

Answer.

Mr. Woodburn

On a point of order. I gathered that it was the order of the House that in presenting a Motion of this kind a speech of short duration could be made in sup port and a speech of short duration could be made in reply. Is the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) providing a precedent for long speeches in future?

Mr. Speaker

What the Standing Order refers to is a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion. I can give no further guidance. I have difficulty in gauging the length and the number of points of order. I certainly think the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) should bring his speech to an end very soon.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

On a point of order. Is it not in accordance with the customs of this House and in accordance with the Rulings of many of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members should not read speeches, although they are allowed to make copious reference to notes? Is it not obvious to you and to the rest of the hon. Members in the House that we are having to endure listening to what is obviously a brief provided by a "ghost writer", which is being read in the utmost detail sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph?

Mr. Speaker

I do not understand the hon. Member's conception of a point of order and how he can suppose that it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair to express an opinion on a matter such as that. [Interruption.]

An Hon. Member

Shut up.

Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgefield)

Do not tell me to shut up.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think it best if the House observes silence while the Speaker is addressing it on a point of order.

Upon the rule as raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) it is perfectly true that it is out of order to read speeches, but it will be found that my predecessors have sometimes passed off the matter by referring to an hon. Member making copious use of his notes. I am not sure that we can object when an hon. Member is apparently seeking to quote from some speech verbatim in order to get

the reference accurate. Owing to the noise it was difficult to say whether what the hon. Member was saying was in order or no.

Mr. Manuel

It is a brief from the Vice-Chairman of the Tory Party.

Mr. Arthur Tiley (Bradford, West)

On a point of order. Would it be in order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

I do not propose to be physically exhausted in trying to hear a point of order which is offered to me. I shall be obliged to the House for letting me hear it.

Mr. Tiley

In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has been so much interrupted, and is making such an excellent speech, would it be in order for him to begin again?

Mr. Speaker

It is not for me to adventure a view about whether the House would welcome that proposition with enthusiasm. From my point of view we have soon to bring this part of the proceedings to an end and I should welcome the House letting the hon. Member for Howden conclude his speech.

Mr. Bryan

Mr. Speaker, I am, in fact, about to conclude. Instead of going back to the beginning of my speech I will read something which, I think, the House did not hear: Socialism without public ownership is nothing but a fantastic apology. The hon. Member for Fife, West, is chastising his leader with the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, who said: There are some in the movement who are lukewarm about nationalisation. Their place is outside it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 224.

Division No. 90	AYES	[4.6 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Blackburn, F.	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ainsley, William	Blyton, William	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Boardman, H.	Carmichael, Neil
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)	Bowles, Frank	Chapman, Donald
Barnett, Guy	Boyden, James	Cliffe, Michael
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood	Brockway, A. Fenner	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Hunter, A. E.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Probert, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Rankin, John
Darling, George	Janner, Sir Barnett	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Reid, William
Deer, George	Jeger, George	Rhodes, H.
Delargy, Hugh	Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dempsey, James	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Diamond, John	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Dodds, Norman	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Doig, Peter	Kelley, Richard	Short, Edward
Driberg, Tom	Kenyon, Clifford	Silkin, John
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)	Lawson, George	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Edelman, Maurice	Lipton, Marcus	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	McBride, N.	Snow, Julian
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	MacColl, James	Steele, Thomas
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	McInnes, James	Stonehouse, John
Evans, Albert	McLeavy, Frank	Stones, William
Fernyhough, E.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Finch, Harold	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Swingler, Stephen
Fletcher, Eric	Manuel, Archie	Symonds, J. B.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mapp, Charles	Taverne, D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Marsh, Richard	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mason, Roy	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Ginsburg, David	Mayhew, Christopher	Tomney, Frank
Gourlay, Harry	Mendelson, J. J.	Wainwright, Edwin
Grey, Charles	Mitchison, G. R.	Warbey, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Monslow, Walter	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gunter, Ray	Moody, A. S.	White, Mrs. Eirene
Hannan, William	Neal, Harold	Wilkins, W. A.
Harper, Joseph	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Willey, Frederick
Hayman, F. H.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Ht. Philip (Derby, S.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Healey, Denis	O'Malley, B. K.	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)	Oram, A. E.	Winterbottom, R. E.
Holman, Percy	Owen, Will	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Houghton, Douglas	Paget, R. T.	Woof, Robert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Howie, W.	Pargiter, G. A.	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hoy, James H.	Paton, John
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pavitt, Laurence	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Mr. Popplewell and
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Peart, Frederick	Mr. W. Hamilton.
	Pentland, Norman
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Anderson, D. C.	Cordle, John	Gurden, Harold
Arbuthnot, Sir John	Corfield, F. V.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Costain, A. P.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Coulson, Michael	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Balniel, Lord	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Barlow, Sir John	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Batsford, Brian	Curran, Charles	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Currie, G. B. H.	Hastings, Stephen
Bell, Ronald	Dalkeith, Earl of	Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Dance, James	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	Hendry, Forbes
Biffen, John	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Hiley, Joseph
Biggs-Davison, John	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bingham, R. M.	du Cann, Edward	Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Eden, Sir John	Holland, Philip
Black, Sir Cyril	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hollingworth, John
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Eiliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Hopkins, Alan
Bourne-Arton, A.	Emery, Peter	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Box, Donald	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	Farr, John	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Brewis, John	Fell, Anthony	Hughes-Young, Michael
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Finlay, Graeme	Hulbert, Sir Norman
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Fisher, Nigel	Hurd, Sir Anthony
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Buck, Antony	Forrest, George	Jackson, John
Bullard, Denys	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Campbell, Gordon	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)	Glover, Sir Douglas	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Channon, H. P. G.	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Kerby, Capt. Henry
Chichester-Clark, R.	Goodhew, Victor	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Gough, Frederick	Kershaw, Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Gower, Raymond	Kimball, Marcus
Cleaver, Leonard	Grant-Ferris, R.	Kirk, Peter
Cole, Norman	Green, Alan	Kitson, Timothy
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Gresham Cooke, R.	Lagden, Godfrey
		Lambton, Viscount

Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Tapsell, Peter
Leather, Sir Edwin	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Lilley, F. J. P.	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Teeling, Sir William
Lindsay, Sir Martin	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Temple, John M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh	Partridge, E.	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Litchfield, Capt. John	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Peel, John	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Longden, Gilbert	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Loveys, Walter H.	Pitt, Dame Edith	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lubbock, Eric	Pounder, Rafton	Thorpe, Jeremy
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Prior, J. M. L.	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
MacArthur, Ian	Pym, Francis	Turner, Colin
McLaren, Martin	Quennell, Miss J. M.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Vickers, Miss Joan
McMaster, Stanley R.	Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)	Wade, Donald
Maitland, Sir John	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Walder, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Ridsdale, Julian	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Marlowe, Anthony	Robson Brown, Sir William	Ward, Dame Irene
Marshall, Sir Douglas	Roots, William	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)	Russell, Sir Ronald	Whitelaw, William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Scott-Hopkins, James	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)	Seymour, Leslie	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mawby, Ray	Sharples, Richard	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Shaw, M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Shepherd, William	Wise, A. R.
Mills, Stratton	Skeet, T. H. H.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)	Woodhouse, C. M.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John	Woodnutt, Mark
Morgan, William	Spearman, Sir Alexander	Woollam, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Stainton, Keith	Worsley, Marcus
Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael	Storey, Sir Samuel	Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hocking.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie	Studholme, Sir Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Talbot, John E.