HC Deb 09 August 1966 vol 733 cc1498-515
Mr. Higgins

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 22, to leave out from "shall" to "matter" in line 23, and to insert: not without the consent of the person concerned include any".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 24, leave out "and" and insert "or", and Amendment No. 8, in line 26, insert: or, if that person objects no report shall contain of any matter relating to that person without the certificate of a judge of the High Court that the public interest requires the publication of such matter against the wishes of that person".

Mr. Higgins

The speed with which the whole Bill has been rushed through Committee and is now being rushed through the House itself is indeed notorious, and that is at least one very unfortunate side effect of the Bill having been prepared in an enormous hurry because of the failure of the Government to foresee at all the economic situation which has now developed, despite the fact that they were warned from this side of the House time and time again in the debates which took place on the Budget.

The result is that there are in the Bill many Clauses which have still not received the scrutiny which it is right and proper they should receive. There has not been sufficient time for a number of the interests which are affected and for a number of people who have expert knowledge of the various provisions of the Bill to make representations to the Government and to the Opposition.

None the less, in Committee, despite the speed and the urgency with which the Government found it necessary to push the Bill through, night after night, we on this side did everything we could to ensure that no real absurdities were incorporated in the Bill. In Committee we were particularly worried about Clause 5(5). This says: In framing any report the Board should have regard to the need for excluding, so far as that is practicable, matter which relates to the private affairs of any person and the publication of which would or might in the opinion of the Board prejudicially affect the interests of that person". In Committee we put down an Amendment very similar in nature to the Amendment we are now considering. It was designed to ensure that publication of the facts which the Board obtained could not take place unless covering particular facts and figures which would anyway have been made available and might have been published.

We did that because on this side we have very great concern that under this Bill companies or trade unions or, indeed, private individuals may be required to divulge to the Board information which they would not be required to divulge under any other legislation. As the Clause now stands it is possible for the Board then to proceed to publish this information, and this might have adverse effects on the interests of the particular company, trade union or individual. Therefore, we now propose an Amendment also designed to say that the Board shall not publish the facts or figures which it has obtained in private unless the people giving them have agreed to their being published.

It may well be, of course, that on some future occasion—in the Government's projected Companies Bill—there may be a very great move towards increased information being obtained from companies, with companies being required to publish it themselves. We on this side would certainly support a very much greater extension of information which companies are required to publish than the Government provided for in their last Bill in the last Parliament, because we believe this kind of information is likely to be in the public interest. But it is a quite different matter from saying that the information which companies must publish shall be covered by a Bill specifically designed for that purpose, with all the safeguards which that Bill would then incorporate. That is quite different from bringing this matter in by the back door in a Bill which is concerned primarily with prices and incomes but which may none the less have the effect of making the private affairs of companies, trades unions and individuals public, leading to the detriment of the people giving the information.

When we pressed the matter in Committee, the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave what seemed at first sight to be an excellent reply. Our reaction was to accept what she said. She said that the position was covered completely in Schedule 1 of the Bill and that there was no need to worry about it because there were safeguards in paragraph 14 of the Schedule and even wider safeguards in paragraph 14 of the Schedule and even wider safeguards in paragraph 16. That sounded very convincing. But, as I say, in many of its aspects the Bill has not been subject to the consideration which it would normally receive. When we began to press the hon. Lady as to whether the safeguards were as comprehensive as she suggested, it became more and more apparent that they had very little effect, and, despite the various paragraphs of Schedule 1, it was quite possible still that information might be given by a private individual to the Prices and Incomes Board and then the Board, simply because it considered that it might not be practicable to exclude it, might publish it.

The same might be true of any individual who appeared before the Board. His salary, his private affairs and the various cost data of a company that he was operating might be disclosed, and we feel that that could be very dangerous. If it was embodied in a separate Act and properly debated, there might be a real case for extending the information which is published, but we do not think it right that the Board should be able to obtain information far in excess of that which might normally be published, and then to publish it.

It is for that reason that, on this side of the House, because we were not convinced on examination of the superficially attractive arguments which the hon. Lady put forward, we feel it necessary to put down this Amendment. We hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it, because they can quite easily cover the point in subsequent legislation. But we think, and I hope that they will agree, that it is wrong to do it in present legislation without adequate safeguards of the kind which I have suggested and which are covered by the Amendment.

The Attorney-General

The Government recognise the importance of protecting persons or individuals from undesirable disclosure of their private affairs. It is for that reason that Clause 5(5) has been drafted with great care, both to protect persons and their private affairs on the one hand and to give the Board discretion to decide what it is necessary to publish on the other.

The House will see that subsection (5) provides: In framing any report the Board shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as that is practicable, a matter which relates to the private affairs of any person". There is therefore a mandatory duty imposed upon the Board to have regard to the need for excluding anything relating to a person's private affairs so far as that is practicable; that is to say, so far as it does not make it impossible for the Board to produce an effective report.

In my submission, it is right to give the Board that discretion if it is to discharge its function of acting in the public interest as against the interests of persons who would otherwise, if the Amendment that is proposed were adopted, have an effective veto on what might be quite crucial passages in the Board's reports.

It is of some interest and relevance that a provision not in identical terms but similar in effect is to be found in Section 9 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, relating to reports of the Monopolies Commission. The Commission has been in existence since 1948 and I have received no evidence of any abuse of its powers concerning publications. The members of the Prices and Incomes Board are responsible men. It is an eminently responsible body, and it is unlikely, to put it at its lowest, that it would exercise this power with any less discretion and care for avoidable disclosure than has been the case with the Monopolies Commission.

Another factor which is of some importance, although it goes more to administrative necessity than to the merits of the matter, is that it is very important that the Board should be able to report quickly. If standstills under Part II are not to expire before reports are published by the Board it is vital that those reports should be got out expeditiously. We can imagine considerable delays being caused if the Board had to negotiate with any person over passages affecting the private affairs of that person, and the interposing of legal advisors or solicitors, and the whole machinery of delay which would frustrate the operation of standstills under Part II.

I understand that we are also discussing Amendments No. 7 and 8, to which I believe the hon. Member did not refer. I say that without criticising him in any way; it may be that another hon. Member opposite will deal with them. But it may be convenient for me to refer to them.

I need not comment on Amendment No. 7, which is covered by the observations that I have already made, but Amendment No. 8 proposes that if a person whose affairs are under report objects no report shall contain of any matter relating to that person without the certificate of a judge of the High Court that the public interest requires the publication of such matter against the wishes of that person". I know of no procedure whereby a High Court judge could be called in aid for the production of such a certificate, but there is a still more substantial objection to the proposal. In effect, it transfers discretion from the Board to a High Court judge as to what should go into a report. In my submission the decision as to this is eminently administrative rather than judicial, and would seem to be eminently within the sphere of responsibility and consideration of the Board, which has responsibility for producing reports and acting within the letter and the spirit of a provision which requires it to have regard to the need for excluding matter which relates to the private affairs of any person, so far as is practicable, consistent with making sense of a report, which is the clear meaning of the subsection.

Therefore, quite apart from this being misconceived machinery and inappropriate to the reports, there would be significant delay if there had to be, by some procedure of which, as I said, I have no knowledge, proceedings in the High Court and a reference to a High Court judge before a particular part of a report could be published. It would endanger the whole machinery of the standstill and accordingly I must advise the House to reject all three Amendments.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower

I am not happy about the reply to which we have just listened. In his opening remarks, the Attorney-General said that the Clause had been carefully drawn—I think I use his exact words—to protect persons on the one hand, and then he said something else about the other aspects of the Clause. I respectfully submit to him that any protection to which he referred is completely removed by the phrase "so far as that is practicable". There can be little protection where there is a phrase like that, when the practicability is to be judged not by some impartial body but by the Board, which is a party judging its own case. How can the Attorney-General say that the Clause has been drawn carefully to protect persons, if the decision on this is to be made by a body which is essentially biased, and is bound to be?

Secondly, he said that it is right to give the Board that discretion, for otherwise there would be an absolute veto by the persons concerned, but of course there would be no such absolute veto if Amendment No. 8 were incorporated, namely, that if a person objects there should be recourse to the High Court Judge procedure to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected. I submit that that effective veto by the person whose affairs were to be investigated and who objected could be made less than absolute if there were some machinery comparable to that suggested in Amendment No. 8. This is a very serious matter, because the Board is to enjoy absolute privilege, and can defame a person's character without his having any recourse to the courts. This is a matter of extraordinary seriousness and gravity, but this did not appear to be appreciated in the Attorney-General's reply.

The Attorney-General said that there is a similar provision in the monopolies legislation. But permanent legislation of that character is different from a Bill of this kind which, even in the words of Government spokesmen, is designed at the most to create a standstill or a pause in earnings and prices for a limited period. I should have thought that there were grounds for distinguishing the two kinds of legislation, particularly as the monopolies legislation impinges on far fewer people than legislation of this character, which might impinge on the personal and private affairs of a large proportion of the population.

While the wording of the Amendments may not be perfect, the principle enunciated in them is essentially sound, that if the Board wishes to interrogate individual citizens and investigate and publish their personal affairs there should be some safeguard, particularly when the Board enjoys absolute privilege on matters of a defamatory nature. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with this matter with, apparently, a good deal of complacency. It is a very serious matter about which the whole House should be deeply concerned.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman waxed very lyrical. Perhaps this is the result of being made a Bard or something of the sort over the weekend. I do not know whether he was given a special name. Perhaps he will tell us what the name was when he replies further to the debate.

What we are discussing now is not mythology. It is a practical matter. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe that they have no intention of prying or snooping and they have no intention of making available to the public private information which would be to the disadvantage of an individual or company. They believe this, but, of course, this is so often the trouble with Socialists. They believe that something will not be to the public disadvantage but when they implement it they find that it is.

The Bill excludes a large section of industry. According to the White Paper, companies employing 100 people or fewer will not be bothered either on the wages side or on the prices side. They are completely exempt. Presumably, this is done because the Government cannot go so far into the economy in detail, but it does let off the hook a very large number of companies and people. Certain people will come before the Board while others will not, and the ones coming before the Board will have to make information available. This information may be of vital importance to them from a business point of view. Many of their competitors who do not come before the Board will not have to provide such information.

There are two questions to be considered. First, are the Government certain that they will get the information they want if they maintain that they may have to make this information publicly available? The expression "so far as … is practicable "allows them to withhold the release of information but it also allows them to provide information to the general public. Firms coming before the Board will be afraid to provide the information which the Government need in case it is made available to their competitors.

This state of affairs exists already in trade associations. One of the reasons why trade associations do not work particularly well in the collection of Government statistics is that member firms are afraid to give information to trade associations—quite wrongly, I think, but it is an understandable view—because they do not want it to be made available to their competitors.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government needed the Clause as drafted because otherwise there might be delay. I cannot understand this. If information is asked for and there are discussions with the people interviewed or from whom reports have been obtained, it ought to be quite easy to reach agreement between the two parties on exactly what should be made available and what should not. If the Government really mean not to allow information to be published if that would be against the wish of those who have been interviewed or from whom reports have been secured, no difficulty should arise.

The Clause could be improved considerably if the Government would take out the words, "so far as … is practicable". They ought to make quite clear to the House and the country that they want to make available in open report only such information as is agreed between all the parties should be made available. If they do not do that, compulsion comes into the Bill immediately, without waiting for the implementation of Part IV.

Mr. Costain

I support the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) recalled that in the middle of the night in our deliberations in Committee upstairs the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary had made some soothing noises on this subject, as a result of which he had felt rather satisfied at the time. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not the first to have been affected in that way. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has referred to historic events on an earlier Amendment, might also have referred to Antony and Cleopatra on this Amendment.

In the modern competitive world in which we live there is more and more industrial espionage. We read about it all the time. Our industries are having to compete with those of other countries and it is, therefore, only fair that the Government should not, by this Measure, give our international competitors a greater advantage than we have over them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made a valid point when he said that if information which is sought is later to be made available to the public, it is likely that that information will not be supplied to the Board. Hon. Members who are also members of the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee know that it is the custom that when witnesses are called to give evidence which is of a special kind, they have the option of having their evidence starred and not published if the Chairman of the Committee agrees.

Since the Government obviously do not wish to hinder British industry, I trust that they will accept the principle of the Amendment so that industrialists giving information to the Board may be assured that the facts they give will not be made available to their competitors. It is not good enough to say that the Board will administer this in a responsible way. It will be the sole arbiter in these matters and the Government should have the courtesy to ensure that industrial information that should not be circulated is kept private.

Mr. Ian Lloyd

We have had some plausible noises from the Attorney-General, who referred, in an effort to justify the Clause as it stands, to the responsible people who would be administering this provision. It is always a dangerous principle to say that a provision as important as this will be in the hands of responsible people. To give the widest possible discretion and to attempt to justify it by saying that that discretion will always be exercised by responsible people is not a satisfactory argument when one recalls that some of the most classic examples of the misuse of bureaucratic power has been the misuse of quite small powers by so-called responsible people.

I hope I am not mistaken in arguing that, throughout the Government machine, it is the general rule, which is widely observed, that no Government Department shall publish statistics which will allow the case of the individual to be isolated from the general statistics published. Is there any good reason why the Board or any other Government Department should be exempted from such a general principle?

The Attorney-General then argued that, as far as he was aware, there were no cases of abuse. However, only this morning in The Times is an article going at considerable length into serious complaints by Colonel Whitbread, who complains that his company has been the subject of Report No. 13 by the Prices and Incomes Board. After describing that report as wholly irresponsible—I do not have the text of his words and I would not like it to be thought that I am quoting what he said—he states that, as a result of that, the Company has been referred to the Monopolies Commission. I have the impression that Colonel Whitbread is also arguing that certain breaches of confidence are involved.

That provides an instance of precisely the type of thing about which we are complaining. The Attorney-General cannot argue that this is a minor matter, that it is in the hands of responsible people and that we need not do anything about it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

Without exaggeration, there is a potential danger in the Clause. This could have been drafted more tightly, so as to provide that the Board "shall" exclude matter which would make it mandatory, instead of its having "to have regard" to matters. What gives greatest concern is that the judges of whether there should be publication are the members of the Board themselves. The argument of the Attorney-General, that because of the standing of the people there is nothing to fear, is a dangerous one. Most matters of this kind which have been raised on the Floor of the House have concerned the inadvertent action, resulting in injustice, of a high-bred person with powers in circumstances like these. The Government could at least look at this again. Amendment No. 8 provides for reference to a High Court judge for certificate. I follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that no machinery exists for this, but the Government ought to meet the objections in some way and at least accept the spirit of the Amendments.

Mr. Higgins

We thought that we would get a reasonable reply from the Attorney-General to put our fears at rest, but unless he can give a further assurance, I propose that we should divide in favour of the Amendment. He prayed in aid the procedure of the Monopolies Commission, but that is quite different, because the Commission investigates firms in a specific category—large firms with more than a third share of the market. Despite what he says, what is published in the Commission's final report has been discussed at considerable length with the firms concerned.

Therefore, they have the opportunity to make representations to the Commission. This will clearly not be the case under this legislation. We are worried that, as a result of an investigation by the Board, information will be published which is not covered by the present Companies Act, and is not likely to be covered by the Government's future Companies Act. As to the Amendment relating to the High Court, we understood in Committee that no more information would be published than could be obtained anyway by the High Court. We felt that the Amendment might help to overcome this. Additional information should not be obtained and published which is not covered by other legislation.

As it stands, the Clause provides no safeguards. The complicated arguments put forward by the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in Committee were not referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Apparently, the Government's defence to the Amendment is totally different on Report from what it was in Committee. Therefore, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman can convince us otherwise, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide.

The Attorney-General

I assure the House that I do not approach this matter in any mood of complacency. I must at once correct a grave misconception of the whole status of the Board's functions. It is not an instrument of the Government but a wholly impartial body. With respect to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) I resent any imputation that it is anything other than an impartial body, holding the ring between the interests whose affairs it may have to consider with a view to giving advice in its reports about the conclusion which it thinks is in the public interest. It is wholly misconceived to regard the Board as a party to the matters or issues which it is considering. It operates in a position and from a standpoint of impartiality.

Another of the basic errors of the criticism by the hon. Member for Barry was in seeking to distinguish between the Board and the Monopolies Commission because the former is temporary and the latter permanent. We are here dealing with Part I of the Bill which, in conjunction with Part III, sets up permanent machinery. It is to be part of the permanent machinery of the economy. Therefore, we are not dealing with transient individuals, unaccountable, who flit overnight from their positions of responsibility. They are, and I must repeat, very responsible public men who—and I put it in this interrogatory way—surely would not unnecessarily disclose the private affairs of any person, unless it was absolutely necessary to make sense of their report.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) tempted me to enter into the realms of mythology, but, despite the temptations, I shall resist that. He asked whether the Board would get the information it needed, because the parties concerned might be affeared by this kind of provision. The House will know that paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 invests the Board with statutory power to require the attendance of persons and the production of documents in their possession or control, so I do not think that there will be any difficulty in getting the information.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

The Attorney-General has enunciated a very naive argument. When a board like this is dealing with industry, whether it gets papers or interviews individuals, if the firms coming before it are afraid that certain information might be disclosed which it would be to their detriment to disclose, they can seek to cloud the issues and not provide the kind of information which is wanted, because they can provide or fail to provide the kind of technical information which the Board would not be equipped to draw out of them.

The Attorney-General

I see the point which the hon. Gentleman is making, but I invite him to consider the precise terms of the subsection which we are considering, the positive duty imposed on the Board to exclude matters which relate to the private affairs of any citizen, save within the realm of necessity of producing a coherent report.

I revert again, without apology, to the experience of the Monopolies Commission which touches the most sensitive part of industrial and business affairs and can deal with secrets and processes for the purposes of comparison. The Act gives the Commission power to disclose even those matters if it is necessary to give coherence and sense to the Commission's Report. I should have thought that one would be reassured by that experience.

I remind the House of the precise terms of paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 1 which provides protection for the private person.

The terms of the paragraph are: (2) No person shall be compelled for the purposes of any such inquiry to give any evidence or produce any document which he could not be compelled to give or produce in proceedings before the High Court or, in complying with any requirement for the furnishing of information, to give any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in such proceedings. The individual will therefore enjoy the same protection as the witness in the High Court, for instance, on grounds of professional privilege, or that the evidence he was called on to give would be incriminating and that he had the right of protection against self-information. Those provisions are embodied in the machinery of this Bill.

I cannot enter into the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Portsmouth,

Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) in regard to Whitbreads. I suppose that it is not unnatural that a report that does not please a company, whether it be a brewery or anything else, should produce a grumble, but I am informed that no suggestion was made of an actual breach of confidence, though I understand that fears were expressed about the procedure, which involves passing information. In any event, I understand that that case is related to something else that is going to the Monopolies Commission, so perhaps the less I say about it the better.

I submit that the provisions of this Clause are not unreasonable and do not give excessive powers to this independent statutory authority which, I invite the House to take the view, will exercise these powers responsibly and reliably, and do no harm to any individual where that can possibly be prevented in the due performance of its duties. I must, therefore, advise the House to reject the Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 154.

Division No. 164.] AYES [9.12 p.m.
Albu, Austen Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Garrow, Alex
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Alldritt, Walter Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Gourlay, Harry
Allen, Scholefield Davies, Harold (Leek) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Anderson, Donald Davies, Ifor (Gower) Gregory, Arnold
Armstrong, Ernest de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ashley, Jack Delargy, Hugh Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Dell, Edmund Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dewar, Donald Hannan, William
Barnes, Michael Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Harper, Joseph
Baxter, William Dickens, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Dobson, Ray Hart, Mrs. Judith
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Doig, Peter Haseldine, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney Donnelly, Desmond Hazell, Bert
Binns, John Driberg, Tom Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Bishop, E. S. Dunnett, Jack Heffer, Eric S.
Blackburn, F. Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Henig, Stanley
Blenkinsop, Arthur Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Boardman, H. Edelman, Maurice Horner, John
Booth, Albert Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Boston, Terence Edwards, William (Merioneth) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Ellis, John Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert English, Michael Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Boyden, James Ennals, David Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Ensor, David Hunter, Adam
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Faulds, Andrew Hynd, John
Brooks, Edwin Finch, Harold Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Janner, Sir Barnett
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Buchan, Norman Floud, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Cant, R. B. Ford, Ben Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Forrester, John Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fraser, John (Norwood) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Coleman, Donald Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Kelley, Richard
Conlan, Bernard Freeson, Reginald Kenyon, Clifford
Crawshaw, Richard Galpern, Sir Myer Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Garrett, W. E. Lawson, George
Leadbitter, Ted Ogden, Eric Skeffington, Arthur
Ledger, Ron O'Malley, Brian Slater, Joseph
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Oram, Albert E. Small, William
Lestor, Mist Joan Orbach, Maurice Snow, Julian
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Orme, Stanley Spriggs, Leslie
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Oswald, Thomas Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Lomas, Kenneth Owen, Will (Morpeth) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Loughlin, Charles Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Luard, Evan Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles Symonds, J. B.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Park, Trevor Taverne, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Pavitt, Laurence Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
McBride, Neil Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thornton, Ernest
McCann, John Pentland, Norman Tinn, James
MacColl, James Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Tomney, Frank
Macdonald, A. H. Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Urwin, T. W.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Varley, Eric G.
Mackie, John Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mackintosh, John P. Probert, Arthur Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Watkins, David (Consett)
McNamara, J. Kevin Randall, Harry Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Redhead, Edward Weitzman, David
Manuel, Archie Rees, Merlyn Wellbeloved, James
Mapp, Charles Rhodes, Geoffrey Whitaker, Ben
Marquand, David Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) White, Mrs. Eirene
Mayhew, Christopher Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mendelson, J. J. Rodgers, William (Stockton) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mikardo, Ian Ross, Rt. Hn. William Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Millan, Bruce Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Molloy, William Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Ryan, John Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Sheldon, Robert Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Morris, John (Aberavon) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Woof, Robert
Moyle, Roland Shore, Peter (Stepney) Wyatt, Woodrow
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Yates, Victor
Newens, Stan Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Norwood, Christopher Silverman, Julius (Aston) Mr. Whitlock and
Oakes, Gordon Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fortescue, Tim Lubbock, Eric
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) McAdden, Sir Stephen
Balniel, Lord Gibson-Watt, David Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Berry, Hn. Anthony Glover, Sir Douglas Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Bessell, Peter Glyn, Sir Richard Maddan, Martin
Biffen, John Goodhew, Victor Maginnis, John E.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Gower, Raymond Marten, Neil
Blaker, Peter Gresham Cooke, R. Mathew, Robert
Body, Richard Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Maude, Angus
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gurden, Harold Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hall, John (Wycombe) Maxwell-Hyelop, R. J.
Brewis, John Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Miscampbell, Norman
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter Hawkins, Paul More, Jasper
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Heseltine, Michael Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Higgins, Terence L. Murton, Oscar
Bullus, Sir Eric Hill, J. E. B. Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Carlisle, Mark Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Neave, Airey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hooson, Emlyn Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Clegg, Walter Hordern, Peter Nott, John
Costain, A. P. Hornby, Richard Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Howell, David (Guildford) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crouch, David Hunt, John Pardoe, John
Crowder, F. P. Hutchison, Michael Clark Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Currie, G. B. H. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Peel, John
Dance, James Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Percival, Ian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Pike, Miss Mervyn
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Pink, R. Bonner
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Jopling, Michael Price, David (Eastleigh)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Prior, J. M. L.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kaberry, Sir Donald Pym, Francis
Doughty, Charles King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn, Sir Alee Kirk, Peter Rawlinson, Rt. Hn, Sir Peter
Eden, Sir John Kitson, Timothy Ridsdale, Julian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Knight, Mrs. Jill Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Eyre, Reginald Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Royle, Anthony
Farr, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Russell, Sir Ronald
Fisher, Nigel Longden, Gilbert Sharples, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Loveys, W. H. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Sinclair, Sir George Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stodart, Anthony Vickers, Dame Joan Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer Wall, Patrick Worsley, Marcus
Tapsell, Peter Ward, Dame Irene Younger, Hn. George
Teeling, Sir William Weatherill, Bernard
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Webster, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thorpe, Jeremy Wells, John (Maidstone) Mr. David Mitchell and
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Whitetaw, William Mr. Grant.
van Straubenzee, W. R. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)