§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 4, at the end to insert:(c) relating to any situation in which any employer, employee or trade union agree or arrange, whether enforceably at law or not, that the number of persons employed in any process, activity or undertaking or the way in which they are employed is in any way, other than for health or safety, restricted or affected so as to conflict with the objectives set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.We now come to Part I of the Bill which sets up in statutory form the Prices and Incomes Board and entitles Ministers to make references to it. The point we are making in the Amendment is a simple one. It is that Ministers should be entitled to refer to the Board not only increases in pay and prices but also restrictive labour practices.
My hon. Friends and I do not for a moment maintain that restrictive labour practices are the fault of only the workers. We think that the workers are generally the leading creators of restrictive labour practices, but they can by hypothesis have been created only with the connivance, positive or negative, of the employers. Thus, we are not making a 1468 narrow, sectional point but are coming to the heart of our economic difficulties, unit costs, since unit costs reflect the relatively low output for each unit of labour and we believe that this, above all, should be referable to the Board.
The House will remember that the Board is really the Productivity Prices and Incomes Board, to give it is full, notional title. It was, therefore, set up with the purpose of looking at labour practices as well as at prices and pay. We have noticed with appreciation how much Mr. Aubrey Jones and his team have concentrated on management and labour practices in the industries they have examined. This is extremely valuable work. Indeed, our support for the Board is largely because we thoroughly approve of the idea of using the Board as a spotlight on restrictive labour practices. We are, therefore, extremely keen that the opportunity should be taken in this legislation, under Part I of the Measure—remembering that Part I is the only part of the Bill with which we have any sympathy whatever—to give powers to Ministers to refer restrictive labour practices as such to the Board.
I do not think it is necessary for me to develop this argument at length, 1469 except, perhaps, to say that the Government might reply, "We have some sympathy with your objectives, but what would happen once the Board had reported "? Our reply is that publicity about restrictive labour parctices has a certain value of itself.
My hon. Friends would go further and probably change the law to cover the most recalcitrant management and labour units which resisted the calls of the Board and of publicity to change their ways, but we are not on this occasion asking the Government to go as far as changing the law. We merely ask them to say that the weapon of publicity—the weapon of daylight—should be made available against restrictive labour practices.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I wish that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had explained exactly what he means by "restrictive labour practices". I was interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) who also referred to the question of restrictive practices, and asked whether they applied to the legal profession. I gather from the nods of assent from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that I have his agreement in pressing this matter.
Would the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East agree that a union which might be affected by this legislation should be able to consult counsel without having to go through a solicitor? This is one of the greatest bottlenecks in terms of restrictive practices. I see no reason why the members of the legal profession should not make the same sacrifices in the next 12 months as others are being asked to make, particularly since that profession is likely to gain most out of this legislation.
§ Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)
Would the hon. Gentleman even consider consulting a surgeon without first going to a general practitioner?
§ Mr. Hughes
That is one of the interesting questions which must be answered by the Opposition. I am attempting to make some exploratory remarks because I want to find out exactly what the official Opposition considers 1470 to be restrictive practices. I understand that the people who will make the most out of this legislation in the next few months are the members of the legal profession.
The Transport and General Workers' Union, represented here by my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, will perpetually be consulting counsel about its agreements. Ins0tead of being able to go direct to learned counsel, who may understand this legislation—or who, on the other hand, may not—the union must go via a solicitor. In that way the legal profession is carrying on what I believe to be one of the most restrictive practices likely to be employed in relation to this legislation. If the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East includes practices of that sort in his references to "restrictive labour practices", he should say so.
§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Amendment he will see that it is probably too narrow to be one of the most restrictive practices cause it does not refer to a situation in which work of a particular kind is restricted to members of a certain organisation. It deals only with the situation in which a… number of persons employed in any process, activity or undertaking … is in any way … restricted or affected so as to conflict with the objectives set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
§ Mr. Hughes
From that intervention I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is coming to my assistance or is supporting the Opposition. Certainly he has not answered my question. I simply want to know whether the restrictive labour practices mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East include the operations of the legal profession. Just as the miners, railwaymen and everybody else must contribute their share to the nation in this hour of financial crisis, so should the members of the legal profession.
If the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East says, "Yes. I mean also the restrictive practices of the legal profession and I agree that they should also be referred to the Board," I will be tempted to support him and vote with the Opposition, but I would need a very definite guarantee about that.
§ Mr. Lubbock
I support the Amendment but, as I indicated in an intervention while the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was speaking, I do not believe that its wording is wide enough because it allows one to deal only with certain types of restrictive practices. I do not believe that it would permit the Prices and Incomes Board to consider the matter raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire; whether one should employ a solicitor or barrister in a particular legal dispute. I should prefer the wording of the Amendment to be wider, so that the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised could be considered as part of the general reference on restrictive practices to the Prices and Incomes Board. The phrase "restrictive practices" does not appear in the Amendment. It speaks only of the number of persons being… restricted or affected so as to conflict with the objectives set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this ActThis is odd wording. I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman means is the case of the number of employees in a particular process exceeding a certain level.
I should like to see the Board consider the question of the number of people employed in the bus services, and whether it is necessary in all cases that so many people should be employed as conductors in some urban areas. If this question could be referred to the Board and a satisfactory solution obtained, it might do something to relieve my constituents of the ever-increasing burden of bus fares which we are forced to accept.
I do not believe that the Prices and Incomes freeze or any other Measure of the Government will benefit my constituents in that respect. What is needed is a fundamental review of the workings of the London Transport Board, such as this Amendment or some other device might bring about. For the reasons which I have given, I think that the Amendment, limited though it is in scope, should be accepted.
§ Mr. Paget
I suppose that we are all agreed, at least in theory, that we should get rid of restrictive practices, but it is naive to imagine that Mr. Aubrey Jones' Board is likely to be able to uproot these ancient and deeply rooted practices, which are rooted in ancient fears, especially when 1472 we are passing a Bill which will reinforce those fears. One has to look to the cause of restrictive practices. Basically, it is fear of unemployment. It is the fear that there will not be enough work to go round. Gradually, since the war, over a long period of full employment, this fear has declined, but it is still a deeply rooted fear for organised labour, and one which can be revived suddenly and strongly.
We are now doing all the things to revive that fear. If hon. Members opposite imagine that a reference to Mr. Aubrey Jones will do what 20 years of full employment have failed to do, in the circumstances of reversing that full employment policy, they are a little naive.
We must also consider the other effect of the Bill. There is only one way, judging from American experience, of getting rid of restrictive practices. It is management's job. Management's instrument for doing that is pay. If we are to get rid of restrictive practices, we will have to buy our way out; this is precisely what the Bill will prevent. In America, where they have not far short of double our productivity——
§ Mr. Paget
It depends where one looks: in some cases, as the right hon. Gentleman says, they have three times as much.
How has this been achieved? It has been done realistically, first by working out what is the optimum productivity for a man in a factory who is working all-out. American experience shows that this is a little under a six-hour day. They have got down to something like that and have also realised that to get men to go to a factory where life is not leisurely, the incentive must be pay.
But we are producing a Measure which is almost sure to interfere with agreements already negotiated and men are hanging on to see if they can make up their losses with overtime. We are giving Mr. Aubrey Jones power to tell them how naughty this is. This does not measure up to the problem.
§ Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is right. There are restrictive practices in the legal and medical professions and others, but they are controlled by Act of Parliament and 1473 based on a reasonable division of labour. Also, they come into force only after a man has taken an examination, whether as a doctor or a lawyer, to differentiate him from unqualified people. That is the true reason for the divisions of labour in the professions and in industry. But this practice becomes intolerable in industry in such cases as the failure of an electric light bulb, when only an electrician is allowed to put in another bulb.
Another example could be that of a steel works in the middle of the night, when some ordinary defect occurs in the cooling system of a furnace. The tap could be mended by the turn of a spanner, but the whole steel works is held up for an hour or two until someone has sent for a plumber to deal with the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is right. These things ought to be put right by management, pay arrangements and so on.
There is an example of a restrictive practice today in my constituency which ought to be reported to the Prices and Incomes Board. In the Twickenham film studios, a man has been properly working as a scene painter and is a member of the National Association of Theatrical and Kinematograph Employees. He has had a anion ticket for some time, but has now been told that he must also become a member of the Amalgamated Society of Decorators and Painters. The union has said that its members will go on strike unless he joins. He has been told by his employers that he must go. He has been given the sack and is now picketing the film studios asking for reinstatement. I would call that a restrictive practice and the sort of thing which is holding up our effort. This man was already a member of a union, with a union ticket, working peacefully, and was asked out of the blue to join another union and because he did not do so, the employers had to give way. That is why I think this sort of thing should be within the process of the Bill.
§ Mr. Gresham Cooke
The light of the publicity which would be thrown on that sort of practice would surely show both 1474 employers and trade unions that they had to recognise their responsibilities.
§ Mr. R. B. Cant (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
I should like to speak at very great length on the wisdom of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, but I will comment only very briefly on the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He went back to the Hilton Committee on Trusts in 1919, saying as it did that light is the sovereign antiseptic and the best of all policemen when dealing with restrictive practices. I should like him to reflect on the example of the motor tyre industry. The Monopolies Commission investigated this industry and said that a number of its restrictive practices were against the public interest and the industry registered those practices with the Restrictive Practices Registrar who told the industry to desist. The industry was then reported because it was not desisting, but was operating on the basis of price information agreements and each firm was fined £10,000. Which does the right hon. Gentleman think the better, the limelight, or the penal code?
§ Mr. William Rodgers
In the course of this discussion we have covered some of the ground covered on the previous Amendment. Arguments about restrictive practices are part of the agument about productivity. We want restrictive practices of all kinds to be abandoned as quickly as possible, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) pointed out, they are not limited to one side of the equation, or to one group of unreasonably minded men, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has in mind. There are many restrictive practices in all the professions and we want those to be abandoned as rapidly as any others. There is far less reason for such practices in the professions than there are for some of the restrictive labour practices which have been continued for some of the reasons mentioned and which we can all understand.
I want to say quite clearly what the National Board for Prices and Incomes can do. The Board can consider, on the basis of references made to it, all questions related to productivity, and in this 1475 respect the right hon. Gentleman was pushing at an open door. When the Board considers a reference and considers the productivity element involved, of course it may find itself considering restrictive practices on both the management and the other side. In this respect the Amendment is unnecessary. If obstacles to efficiency are to be overcome and the Board has any part to play, it will consider restrictive practices in the normal course of its investigations and will be looking at the sort of questions mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), for example.
First, the operations of the Board will cover restrictive practices by encompassing them in its work and in its reports on problems of productivity. Secondly, if we were to do as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, we should pre-judge the Board's reports. The right hon. Gentleman said quite openly, as he said in Committee, that he wanted the spotlight to be turned on restrictive practices. If we carried through the implications of that, we should be referring restrictive practices to the Board and pre-judging their nature before the Board had had an opportunity to consider them.
It is far better to make references to the Board on prices or incomes questions and assume that in the course of its investigations it will consider restrictive practices. In that way we shall not prejudge its investigations or its conclusions, which is precisely what we would do if we made an issue of restrictive practices in the way which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I half agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said. Many restrictive practices on the labour side have grown up over a long period as a defence against unemployment and as a reaction to the fear of unemployment. For that reason, we can be sympathetic towards these practices where they have existed, but I certainly do not take as gloomy and cynical a view about the impossibility of overcoming them. There is no room for conservatism of any kind, even if it is conservatism born of a proper desire to defend oneself against the consequences of unemployment. I take a much more optimistic view of the capacity of the great majority of men and women to 1476 consider the current situation and to regard it as greatly different from the situation of 20 or 30 years ago, despite immediate problems.
We should seek to understand why restrictive practices grew up while at the same time not seeking to perpetuate them in any way, either by word of mouth or failing to draw attention to them when they are properly obstacles to efficiency. I must ask the House to resist the Amendment, but in doing so I say again that where restrictive practices impede efficiency, we hope that they will be abandoned and that we think that they are something which should be properly encompassed by the Board's inquiries and reports.
§ Mr. Biffen
I am a little disappointed by the Under-Secretary's answer. I do not think that there would be any element of pre-judgment in a reference to the Board, because the whole approach has been that the Board should be encouraged to make a dispassionate study of the problems referred to it, whether they are problems of prices or incomes, or of demarcation or overmanning or alleged overmanning. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would not argue that the Government have prejudged in any of the 18 instances which they have referred to the Board and on which the Board has already reported.
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is still the most valid. It is that we are discussing the policy in its totality, with prices, incomes and productivity. Clause 2(1,a) specifically refers to prices; Clause 2(1,b) refers specifically to incomes and it is only right that there should be a Clause 2(1,c) referring specifically to the elements of productivity.
It has been made clear that the problems which concern us are the widespread allegations—I do not say whether they are fair or unfair—that there exist within British industry substantial elements of overmanning and demarcation difficulties which inhibit the proper and most economic utilisation of labour. There is a good case for arguing that the Board ought to be able to identify, in cases referred to it, areas where overmanning scales have or might be reduced, to identify the kind of agreements which led to such reductions and the extent to which 1477 health and safety arguments were sustained or not borne out by subsequent reductions. The arguments concerning health and safety are obviously legitimate in any determination of manning scales.
It is quite true that already in the work of the Board there has been evidence that it is able to deal with them. In the baking industry report I understand that there was a productivity agreement which was, at least in part, facilitated by the Board's studies, and which, incidentally, has been put in the deep freeze for six months. It is precisely that kind of circumstance that we think might be facilitated by the acceptance of the Amendment.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left the Chamber; he seemed to think that our proposal did not go wide enough, but my reading of the Bill leads me to believe that what concerns him would be covered by Clause 2(1). Even if our Amendment does not in his view go wide enough, I am sure that his many friends in another place could assist him by seeking to widen the Amendment during their deliberations later in the week.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) quite rightly argued that it was management's job to contest restrictive practices. No one would disagree with that view, nor with the view that the reports of Mr. Aubrey Jones would help to solve the matter. We on this side have constantly argued that there is essentially a useful rôle in which Mr. Aubrey Jones's activities can assist. They are the areas of illumination. The hon. and learned Gentleman may argue that this is a very limited rôle, but it
§ is a valuable one, and I do not think that he would deny that we have had some very valuable reports from Mr. Aubrey Jones.
§ I accept three reasons above all others why we should be most concerned about the most economical utilisation of our labour force. The first is that, whatever the extent of the credit squeeze, skilled labour in particular will continue to be in short supply. Any analysis of population statistics suggests that our working population is likely to be such that future demand on it will be very great. Secondly, a widespread acceptance—which may not be shared by the hon. and learned Gentleman—that we must continue with tight controls on Commonwealth immigration will accentuate the tightness of the labour market, and we must accept the consequences. The selective employment premium is a third reason why we should constantly seek to examine how industry makes use of the labour. At the end of the day we must be in a far better position than now to comment on accusations that occasionally appear in newspapers like the Sunday Times, with Mr. Allen describing Britain as a part-time nation.
§ I do not prejudge that we are a nation which over-indulges in restrictive practices, but I say that if the Prices and Incomes Board has legitimate rôles, this is one of them. I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary should have answered as he has done, and I fear that we have no option but to carry this Amendment to a Division.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 233.1481
|Division No. 163.]||AYES||[7.33 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Carlisle, Mark||Eyre, Reginald|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Farr, John|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Clark, Henry||Fisher, Nigel|
|Batsford, Brian||Clegg, Walter||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Corfield, F. V.||Fortescue, Tim|
|Bessell, Peter||Costain, A. P.||Foster, Sir John|
|Biffen, John||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Crouch, David||Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan|
|Blaker, Peter||Crowder, F. P.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Body, Richard||Currie, G. B. H,||Glover, Sir Douglas|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Dance, James||Glyn, Sir Richard|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Gower, Raymond|
|Brewis, John||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Grant, Anthony|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Gresham Cooke, R,|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter||Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Doughty, Charles||Gurden, Harold|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Eden, Sir John||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maginnis, John E.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Hawkins, Paul||Marten, Nell||Scott, Nicholas|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Mathew, Robert||Sharples, Richard|
|Heseltine, Michael||Maude, Angus||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Stodart, Anthony|
|Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Miscampbell, Norman||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Hordern, Peter||Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)||Talbot, John E.|
|Hornby, Richard||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Tapsell, Peter|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Murton, Oscar||Teeling, Sir William|
|Hunt, John||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Neave, Airey||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nott, John||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Jopling, Michael||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Pardoe, John||Wall, Patrick|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Peel, John||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Kirk, Peter||Percival, Ian||Webster, David|
|Kitson, Timothy||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Pink, R. Bonner||Whitelaw, William|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Prior, J. M. L.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Pym, Francis||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Loveys, w. H.||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Worsley, Marcus|
|Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter||Younger, Hn. George|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Mr. More and|
|Maddan, Martin||Royle, Anthony||Mr. David Mitchell.|
|Albu, Austen||Dell, Edmund||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dewar, Donald||Horner, John|
|Alldritt, Walter||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Allen, Scholefield||Dickens, James||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)|
|Anderson, Donald||Dobson, Ray||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)|
|Archer, Peter||Doig, Peter||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Donnelly, Desmond||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Ashley, Jack||Dunnett, Jack||Hunter, Adam|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Hynd, John|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)|
|Barnes, Michael||Edelman, Maurice||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)|
|Baxter, William||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Ellis, John||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||English, Michael||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Binns, John||Ennals, David||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Blackburn, F.||Ensor, David||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Boardman, H.||Faulds, Andrew||Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)|
|Booth, Albert||Finch, Harold||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Boston, Terence||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Kelley, Richard|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert||Floud, Bernard||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)|
|Boyden, James||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Lawson, George|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Ford, Ben||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Forrester, John||Ledger, Ron|
|Brooks, Edwin||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)||Freeson, Reginald||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Garrett, W. E.||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Cant, R. B.||Garrow, Alex||Loughlin, Charles|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Luard, Evan|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Gourlay, Harry||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Coleman, Donald||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Gregory, Arnold||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Grey, Charles (Durham)||McBride, Neil|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||McCann, John|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||MacColl, James|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hannan, William||Macdonald, A. H.|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Harper, Joseph||McKay, Mrs. Margaret|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mackie, John|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Haseldine, Norman||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hazell, Bert||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersneld, E.)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Heffer, Eric S.||Manuel, Archie|
|Mapp, Charles||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Swingler, Stephen|
|Marquand, David||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Maxwell, Robert||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Taverne, Dick|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Probert, Arthur||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Mellish, Robert||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Randall, Harry||Thornton, Ernest|
|Mikardo, Ian||Redhead, Edward||Tinn, James|
|Millan, Bruce||Rees, Merlyn||Tomney, Frank|
|Molloy, William||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Urwin, T. W.|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Morris, John (Aberavon)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Moyle, Roland||Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Newens, Stan||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)||Weitzman, David|
|Norwood, Christopher||Ryan, John||Wellbeloved, James|
|Oakes, Cordon||Sheldon, Robert||Whitaker, Ben|
|Ogden, Eric||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.||Whitlock, William|
|O'Malley, Brian||Shore, Peter (Stepney)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Oram, Albert E.||Silkin, John (Deptford)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Orbach, Maurice||Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Orme, Stanley||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Oswald, Thomas||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Skeffington, Arthur||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Slater, Joseph||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Small, William||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Park, Trevor||Snow, Julian||Woof, Robert|
|Pavitt, Laurence||Spriggs, Leslie||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Yates, Victor|
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Pentland, Norman||Stonehouse, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Mr. R. W. Brown and Mr. Bishop.|