§ Unless Parliament otherwise determines, this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
While we do not believe in the permanent provision of the Bill, we are by no means wedded to the three years that the new Clause suggests. It could well be that the Minister, with all the facts at his fingertips, will convince us that we have put forward a time scale which is unsuitable or unrealistic for one reason or another. It may well be that in those circumstances we shall settle for something somewhat different.
On the Second Reading of the original Bill, I said that I was not dogmatic about the powers for annual renewal, and I shall not be dogmatic now. We are seeking a solution that gives maximum Parliamentary control with the minimum disturbance of confidence in the industry. I recognise the importance of finding that sort of solution. No one can regard our attitude in the three-year proposal as ungenerous, because in this instance it will be a four-year period. The House does not need to be reminded that as long ago as 27th July, 1965, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Bill and it was then promised as the first Bill of the Session. It is far from being that, and the Government have found themselves operating an authorisation scheme of licensing without any authority from Parliament for a very considerable time.
It is fair to say that the handling of the Bill will go down in Parliamentary history as the most inept and unconstitutional for many years. But we are not here tonight to bully the Minister. We want not to bully him about the ugly precedent of carrying over a Dissolution power which the Government did not possess, but to make the best improvements that we can to a bad Bill and to end some of the uncertainty in the industry, which is something that the Government seem incapable of doing. Everything that they do seems to increase it.
To discuss the reasons why the Government should seek to make this a 505 permanent measure is to challenge its raison d'être. There was no question when the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) took office, in those happy and undivided days of 1964, of this being a permanent Measure, nor was there in July, 1965, because at both those times the Minister was still reassuring the industry that there would be no controls—not permanent controls, but no controls. However, on 27th July, the Chancellor told the House that the Bill was part of an attempt to
… reach our aim of eliminating the deficit in the course of next year and of maintaining the strength of sterling …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 228.]That would seem, on the face of it, as almost being an argument for a temporary Bill, unless it was believed that the crisis was permanent.The former Minister said on the 8th December, on the Second Reading of his own, now abandoned, Building Control Bill that it was permanent legislation, and was not introduced to deal only with a short-term problem. He added:
As far as I can see for all the years alead—all the researches undertaken prove this—and, despite the productivity that we hope to get from the industry, it will probably not attract enough manpower to expand at the rate that we needed in the terms of the national economy".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 439.]The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the construction industry was not an attractive one. We had an imaginative passage from him about the wind and the rain. He said that men over 40 looked for the inside job, and that "one therefore has wastage". All this is too true. It seems to confirm assertion that he made the other day that he knew nothing of the advent of the Selective Employment Tax before leaving office on 4th April, and that if he had known he would not have advocated permanent powers or, perhaps, the Bill at all.By 19th May the right hon. Gentleman was quite as doubtful about the value of permanent powers as we are on this side of the House. He said then:
There is no doubt that in the conditions which existed 12 months ago, with overheating of the industry by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., the Building Control Act was justified; that is, at that time".Later, he said: 506If that Measure was justified, I doubt whether the Selective Employment Tax is justified as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1630.]There is no praise for permanency there. I know from the record that the right hon. Gentleman—and I told him that I would mention him tonight—voted for the Selective Employment Tax. Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's words which I quoted earlier, I imagine that we can look forward confidently to his ebullient and unrepentant presence in the Division Lobby with us tonight when we vote for the new Clause.Why should be have permanent legislation? I know that the Parliamentary Secretary gets very uncomfortable when we remind him of certain words with which he explained the situation to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on 7th February this year. I have referred to these words before, but they must be mentioned again if we are to get anywhere near trying to unravel the complicated strands of the Government's corporate mind. After telling us that the object of the Bill was to anticipate crises—presumably created by his colleagues—the Parliamentary Secretary said of the Bill that in another economic crisis measures appropriate to the 1965 crisis would probably not be exactly what was needed.
Really, the hon. Gentleman has there made the case for us against permanency of the powers which the Minister seeks in the Bill. It is argued in favour of permanent powers that they should be reasonably long term because "starts" in construction in one year will affect the following year and the year after. This is true. We were told at different stages—we have been given so many reasons at different times that it is hard to find them all—that the purpose of the Bill was to increase housing. What has been so distressing over the last few months is the way in which the Bill has affected fields that it was never intended to affect. Those fields have suffered.
The incidence of the Bill on the construction figures, the abandonment of architects' plans and the cut-back in projects passing through surveyors' offices—all these were, perhaps, predictable. Infinitely more depressing is the effect on the level of demand and the way in which the level of demand has been reflected 507 on housing "starts". In the first quarter of 1966, for example, housing "starts" were 13,000 down on the first quarter of 1965.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman cannot make a Second Reading speech on the Bill on this new Clause
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkI am in some difficulty here, Mr. Speaker, because the reasons for not requiring permanency are very closely related to the dislike of the Bill.
§ Mr. SpeakerI appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I have pointed it out to him.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkI also appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I felt fairly confident that at some point you would remind me of this difficulty.
What is depressing about this is what appears to be the lack in the Ministries concerned—if there were not this lack the permanent powers would not be required—of knowledge, research, and forecasting, and this must be put right. It is easy to say that if one limits the building of office blocks, hotels, bowling alleys, and so on, one will eventually get a situation in which more houses are built. That is confidently asserted, but there is no proof of it, and I cannot think that enough research into it has been done. An article in the District Bank Review, recently, pointed out that there was no means yet of saying whether a switch from these other projects would quickly produce bottlenecks in certain materials and skills. That is something that we should know before attempting to take permanent powers of this kind.
I suspect that all these things could be discovered. We from our point of view must hope that research with the co-operation of industry is going on swiftly and to this end. Perhaps, too—this is relevant to how temporary or permanent the power should be—to avoid future expensive fiascos such as we have seen recently in respect of one basic building material which I hardly dare mention, we should be looking for a proper system of forecasting, perhaps through the medium of a scientific analysis of planning consents. This in itself might provide a reasonable predict- 508 tion of requirements over the next few months. Certainly, if the Minister wants to introduce this sort of Bill, with permanent powers, he should have these facts at his disposal.
When the right hon. Member for Leeds, West introduced the Bill originally, he said, among other things:
We have all seen building sites in our own constituencies undermanned or held up through lack of materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 438.]Undermanned the sites may have been at that time, and the Selective Employment Tax may take a further toll. Of materials, however, this much must be said. Either out of a larger-than-life human error or precisely because he had not done enough research in the way I have just suggested that in forecasting demand, for example, and, again, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was later pulling the carpet from under his feet, the former Minister went to the brick-makers and rather over-egged the pudding. We know what happened. That is another illustration of the way in which circumstances change so quickly. This is what is worrying about the permanency of this Bill.There were a good many allusions earlier, in the course of the proceedings which have been so long drawn out on these Bills, about the shortages of labour in the construction industry. From the National Plan to various other oracles like the former Minister, like the lion. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) and the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), we have heard of these difficulties of shortages of labour. However, in spite of this, some months later the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either believing that the Bill had died, which, after the pre-election démarche, was perhaps excusable, or finding that the speeches of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West were rather an acquired taste, decided that there was something wrong with the construction industry. Presumably, he could not find what it was from the speeches which he had read, and something had to be done to cure the shortage of labour in the industry.
The Government tried to find the solution by caling in leeches, who, seeing that the industry was suffering from a loss of blood, decided that the cure was 509 bleeding. And so we got the Selective Employment Tax.
§ Mr. SpeakerAgain, this is becoming either a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkMy object in recalling this, Mr. Speaker, is simply to show how very fast the situation in these matters changes and why, therefore, permanent powers of the kind envisaged to be taken in the Bill are not appropriate to the situation. However, there is no need for me to dwell upon the point. It is self-evident.
If we are to have the Bill, which has now been made rather more irrelevant in its permanency by the Selective Employment Tax, it is obvious that there should be a time scale. We must therefore ask the Minister, if there was a time limit in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, why there is not one in this Measure. The question is whether the Government have changed their minds about that, or whether, as I hope is not the case, they have become more and more indoctrinated with the notion of controls for controls' sake.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in all that he has said on the new Clause. Many of us are indeed wedded to the belief that a temporary operation of the Bill would be in the best interests of all concerned. The reasons for this have been gone into extensively at every stage. The Government spokesmen have been far from convincing in their rejection of our proposal. As I see it, the fact remains that there is no need for a permanent Measure. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will concede this.
As my hon. Friend has said, it was only on 27th July last year that indication was given that the Bill would be a permanent measure. I and many of my hon. Friends, and, indeed, hon. Members opposite, and certainly most of those concerned with the industry, thought that it would be a temporary measure. They were justified in so thinking because we have to remember that the reason given for it at the outset was that we were faced with a financial crisis in which the over- 510 heating of the industry would adversely affect the economic position. Many of us accepted that in good faith.
There is grave reason now to doubt that the improvement in the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated a year ago has come about. Indeed, we know that it has not. Therefore, I am converted to the extent of believing that it might be reasonable to have the Bill in operation for rather more than the one year which the Chancellor's statement suggested would be necessary. That is no excuse, however, for translating what many of us deemed to be a temporary Measure into a permanent one.
We hope that in three years' time the crisis which the Bill was drawn up to meet will be behind us. If we then can look forward to a financial climate in which the Bill will not be necessary on the ground that the Chancellor explained on 27th July, we are justified in putting forward the new Clause containing a restriction of time.
The restriction in the new Clause has been set at three years, but we on this side would not question too closely a variation of a year or so. It seems sensible that the restriction should have a similar time limit as was deemed necessary for the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act it seems sensible that the two Measures should run concurrently. I see no reason, however, nor has the Minister ever given one, why there should be a difference in the timing of these two Measures, because their objective is broadly the same. I agree that the objective of the Offices Bill is in some respects different, but there is a great degree of comparison possible between the two in the way of timing of control.
There therefore remains for consideration the question of control for control's sake. Unless the Minister can produce much more convincing arguments, I am reduced to the belief that the permanency of this Measure is accounted for by the fact that it is a control for control's sake. I do not want to believe this, because that sort of attitude does not do any of us any good. Having heard at first hand, however, many of the arguments which have been put forward, I can only assure the Minister that there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of people outside this House who will believe this profoundly.
511 For that reason also, it is in the interest of the industry to have the Bill as a temporary Measure. I hope that the Minister will accept, if not the period of three years as a limit to the control, at least a period no longer than is absolutely necessary. I warmly support the new Clause.
§ Mr. CostainAs is the custom of the House I will declare an interest in the building industry. I wish to support my hon. Friend in moving this new Clause. One of the objectives of the Report stage is to present to the House some of the arguments considered in Committee. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen a Report stage when there has not been a single Member on the benches opposite to hear our arguments? In spite of the fact that my hon. Friend has given notice to some of the hon. and right hon. Members, we are faced with a situation when there is the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and his Parliamentary Private Secretary present—and a Whip to see that they are here.
It makes a mockery of any speech which any of us may make, because we know that the Minister has come with his brief made out and his Parliamentary Secretary is here to support him. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who said that the Minister was not going to accept this new Clause. From his very jovial attitude I think that he may be going to accept it, but in case he is not may I make two curt points? The first is that when the Socialist Government brought in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965, they did so as a temporary measure, because they had not been in office very long. Now they have been in office a bit longer, they are even more worried about the country and are now suggesting that they should have a permanent Measure. The very admission that they want to bring in permanent control in peace time must be an admission of failure. I should have thought that the Minister would be sufficiently confident in his own ability to see that this was not necessary.
My speech is an appeal only to the Minister—there is no one else on the other side and I know that my hon. Friends will support me. My second 512 point is that the Minister has recently taken office and by what he has shown in his attitude to the previous new Clauses it is clear that he has studied the situation very carefully. He took this Bill when it was by no means a virgin. It had been through the Committee stage at great length. If there is to be any time control, of a semi-permanent nature then I would suggest that the experience of some of us in the industry is that this is the wrong way to do it.
If there is a permanent Act of Parliament, the Minister is going to have a very difficult job to persuade his own Cabinet to give him Parliamentary time to bring in a better Measure if it is required. I do not think that it will be, but it is a consideration to bear in mind. If this is an expiring Act he will then have the opportunity of saying to his colleagues in the Cabinet, "I have a better idea, let us introduce a new type of control or a new type of licence." But if he takes the easy way out and says that this must be permanent legislation, he is removing all further opportunity of benefit from himself. For these reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will accept this Clause.
§ Mr. PrenticeMay I put the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) out of his agony by saying that I have no intention whatever of accepting this new Clause. The arguments to which we have listened from the three hon. Members opposite reflect the basic opposition of hon. Members opposite to the Bill altogether, for the doctrinaire reasons that are so close to their hearts. It is not a question of this side of the House being in favour of control for the sake of control, because the reasons for these powers and the reasons for the permanent aspect have been explained over and over again. Rather it is that hon. Members opposite, because of their particular doctrines, are against all controls, however justified they may be. It is they who are being doctrinaire about this, and are wilfully refusing to recognise the case that has been deployed over and over again.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), made a number of references to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). As he said, my right hon. Friend was aware that these remarks were 513 going to be made. He said to me earlier that he would not find it possible to be present and he also said, if it is in order to report the conversation, "I know that you can deal with him all right", and he did not appear to be very worried about the proceedings. Perhaps I can point out one thing, to put the records straight on behalf of my right hon. Friend. He did not make a speech attacking the Selective Employment Tax—he said that he was in favour of the lax but against the classification of the construction industry under it, and that is a point that should be made clear.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkIt is equally important to make it clear that what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the two taken together were not compatible with the interests of the construction industry, or words to that effect. I hope that the Minister will look them up carefully. As to my reference to him, the reason why he found it unnecessary to attend was because he knew that I would be speaking of him in my usual good-natured style.
§ Mr. PrenticeI am also trying to be good natured, but this Clause produces a deep difference of principle between us, and the arguments, although good natured should be clear and strong on both sides. I want to clarify what is at snake, and to make it clear to hon. Members opposite that this Bill does not provide for permanent controls. It provides a permanent machinery which can be used for control if and when control is necessary.
The degree of control that is exercised could be nil. There could well be a situation in which there were long periods when it was not considered necessary to restrict or to delay any applications. Over a short run this could be operated by saying "Yes" to all applications. Over longer periods the powers under Clause 8(1, b) of the Bill could operate so that controls were entirely suspended. In other words, it would be unnecessary for those wishing to make developments to apply to the Ministry. If that situation arose, and if, at some later date, the Government of the day wished to re-impose the controls they would have to do so by way of an Order requiring the affirmative consent of the 514 House, so that there would be Parliamentary control over this, and I agree that there should be.
It is important to make that distinction. It is not the permanent controls that we are discussing but the power of the Government to operate controls and whether that power is to be a permanent power which would not require to be renewed from time to time. We have been arguing the case for permanency at all stages of the Bill. I have argued it on more than one occasion during the stages that there have been since I took office. I have never accepted the fact, and hon. Members should not attribute it to the Government, that this Bill was brought in only to deal with a particular crisis in the balance of payments. It was the crisis in the balance of payments in July, 1965, that made it urgent to operate controls and it is arguable that, if that situation had not arisen, then this Bill would not have come forward in the way that it did or at the time that it did. The Bill introduced in the last Parliament was a Bill which provided for permanent machinery.
I should like hon. Members opposite to recognise that the case for the future does not depend upon whether there are particular balance of payments crises. It is a question of the need to relate the growth of demand for the construction industry with its capacity. I should like to put it in this context. Anyone looking at the future demand for building and civil engineering is bound to come to the conclusion that this will be an expanding demand which will grow very rapidly over the years.
There are three reasons for this. First of all, the population of the country is rising. At present it is 52 million, and by the end of the century it will be 72 million. This clearly means a very big increase in demand for houses, schools, hospitals, factories and so on. Secondly, there is naturally a proper demand for rising standards, which will create additional demand. Thirdly, the growth of construction is related to economic growth generally. The nation is not going to get the economic growth that we know to be possible and that we all want unless the growth of construction is one of the fundamental events taking place within the general growth of the economy. Therefore, those people looking forward to a career as workers, professional men 515 and managers in the industry, can look forward with confidence to a growth of demand. What worries them, because of their past experience, is that the curve may not be going steadily upwards all the time but jerking about and that, although the general trend is upwards, there will be a number of ups and downs on the way.
§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk as though the only setback the industry ever had was in the summer of last year. There have been a number of setbacks, some of them due to policies introduced by Government because of balance of payments problems, some of them due to other factors concerning the industry. In other words, this is an industry in which there has been, and still is, uncertainty by employers and contractors about prospects, often leading to hesitations and doubts, and making them less ready than they should be to undertake technological innovations. This is an industry in which the employment situation is not as secure as it should be. Employment is of much too casual a nature. It is very difficult to get the right correlation between the expansion of construction and the production of building materials.
§ The hon. Member for Londonderry seems to think that we should be embarrassed by talking about bricks. Why? Constantly over the years there have been situations of glut and situations of shortage of bricks and other building materials. It is difficult for the building material industry to be in step with the construction industry.
§ Because of all these difficulties, there is a duty on the Government to do what they can to help the industry to achieve a more harmonious relationship between the growth of demand and the capacity of the industry. This is not something which the Government, on their own, can guarantee. They cannot guarantee always to get the right answer. But the Government, whichever party may be in power, have a duty to make a regular assessment of the situation as best they can, backed up by as much research as possible—of course, we need more research in this respect—and then exert an influence designed to achieve as far as possible a steady growth of demand 516 and capacity so as to avoid the kind of problems which have been mentioned.
§ Mr. CostainI have listened with much interest to the Minister's philosophy about the building industry, but can he explain why the Bill—which gives the right to build bingo halls in Glasgow without a licence and makes it impossible to build a nursing home in Folkestone—has to do with it?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into discussing the merits of the Bill again.
§ Mr. PrenticeIf it were in order, I should point out that Glasgow was a development district, but it is not in order, and therefore I had better not pursue that point. I am prepared to argue these points. Indeed, we have argued them at length, as hon. Members opposite know.
We have a duty to play our part in trying to achieve a greater harmony than there has previously been between the growth of demand and the growth of capacity. This is a permanent duty. In order to exercise that duty, the Government should have the right to bring in these controls to the extent that they are needed. As I have pointed out, there may be long periods in which they are not needed. The Bill does not specifically provide for permanent controls; it provides merely for the machinery by which they can be introduced.
I agree about the need for more research. This is a matter to which we are giving great attention in the Ministry, in its Research and Development Group. It is something which the industry should have done more for itself in the past. One of the great criticisms of the building industry is that it has never had a research association.
I am glad to remind the House of something which was made public a few weeks ago Perhaps it did not come to the attention of all hon. Members. Two or three weeks ago I was able to preside over a meeting of the representatives of the building and civil engineering industry in which a statement of intent was agreed, after a long period of negotiations, to extend the Civil Engineering Research Association to cover the building industry. Promises of financial support have been made by builders and 517 civil engineers to allow this growth to lake place. This is a very important point. I agree that we need research both within Government and within industry about the kind of problems we have been discussing and a whole range of other problems which are not relevant to this discussion.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkWould the Minister tell us what he has in mind? Does it follow closely on the lines being planned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when he was at the Ministry? Is it on the lines of the Committee's Report at that time?
§ Mr. PrenticeI think that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Woodbine Parish Report. It follows that in certain respects, but not in every respect. I should be glad to answer questions about that when it is appropriate.
There was agreement at the meeting of representatives to which I have referred on a statement of intent which in some cases has to be referred back and approved by the bodies represented. Therefore, the matter is still not final. But this was an important development after a long period of delay.
I have given the basic reasons why we do not accept the Amendment, which would limit the period of the Bill. All I have done is merely to repeat arguments which hon. Members opposite have heard many times. The reference to three years in the Amendment makes it even more unacceptable. It bears very little relation to the time-scale in which these matters are dealt with.
The House will be aware that I gave assurances in Committee, and my predecessor gave assurances in the previous Parliament, that we would give advice to intending developers for up to two years or, exceptionally, up to three years before the starting date. It would not be sensible before the Bill has passed into law to lay down a three-year limit which would inevitably lead to a situation in which some people might gamble on the fact that the Measure would operate for three years and might not be renewed.
However, I emphasise that I do not resist the Amendment purely because it refers to a limit of three years. I would equally emphatically resist it if it laid 518 down any period. The case has been made, and has not been answered by hon. Members opposite, for putting permanent power in the hands of the Government to operate controls of this kind.
§ Mr. ChannonWe have heard from the Minister an almost passionate defence of the permanent nature of the building controls which the Government seek to impose by the Bill. I agree with him that there is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House in their approach to the Bill. We consider that the Bill, if it is to be enacted, should be temporary. We have explained that we are not wedded necessarily to the period of three years, although I would point out that three years from the date on which the Bill is passed will be four years from the time that it was first announced to the House, if we are lucky. That makes some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms a little invalid.
I do not accept what the Minister said on one point, that it was not just due to the crisis of 27th July that the Bill was introduced. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that he had no intention to impose controls of this sort on the building industry. When those controls were at last brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were to meet a temporary situation, and that is why we say that the Bill should not be permanent. This is typical of the way in which the Government act. First, they say that they will not introduce controls, then they introduce controls to deal with a temporary situation, and then they make those controls permanent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) referred to what happened about the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act. It was a retrospective Act, like this Bill. We were told that it was a temporary Measure, introduced for seven years. We were told by the Minister that he saw no need for controls to be imposed on the building industry. Then came the emergency of July, 1965, and then came this legislation which became permanent and included offices by a side wind in spite of the fact that the Government only a year earlier had introduced temporary legislation to deal with the problem of offices. 519 Now, by a side wind, they take permanent powers of this kind.
It was most unfair of the Minister to say that we were against all controls on doctrinaire grounds. He knows perfectly well that we did not vote against the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act. We did not vote against the Statutory Instrument applying its terms to the Birmingham conurbation which was brought in almost at once after the Act became law in spite of assurances that any extension was most unlikely.
We have already seen the disastrous effects of Government policy upon the building industry and upon housing. We are convinced that the Bill, which is now reaching its final stages in the House after a stormy passage, will do nothing to help
§ solve the housing problem and the problems of the building and construction industry. If it must be enacted at all, it ought to be a temporary Measure. It is a disgrace that it should be introduced as a permament feature of legislation over the building and construction industry.
§ Although we have had a friendly discussion on the Clause, the Government must realise that the division between us on this issue is fundamental. As the Minister is unable to make any concession to us about the permanent or temporary nature of the Bill, the only course open to us is to show our disapproval of their intentions by dividing the House.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 203.
521| Division No. 96.] | AYES | [7.41 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Gurden, Harold | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Bell, Ronald | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Nott, John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Blaker, Peter | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Braine, Bernard | Hawkins, Paul | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hay, John | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Heseltine, Michael | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hill, J. E. B. | Peel, John |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Holland, Philip | Percival, Ian |
| Campbell, Gordon | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Carlisle, Mark | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pounder, Rafton |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Pym, Francis |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Jopling, Michael | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kimball, Marcus | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Cooke, Robert | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Kirk, Peter | Roots, William |
| Corfield, F. V. | Kitson, Timothy | Royle, Anthony |
| Costain, A. P. | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Scott, Nicholas |
| Crouch, David | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Shaw, Michael (Seb'gh & Whitby) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stainton, Keith |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Stodart, Anthony |
| Dance, James | Longden, Gilbert | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Loveys, W. H. | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | MacArthur, Ian | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | McMaster, Stanley | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maddan, Martin | Wall, Patrick |
| Eden, Sir John | Maginnis, John E. | Walters, Denis |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marten, Neil | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Farr, John | Mawby, Ray | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Fisher, Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Webster, David |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Whitelaw, William |
| Forrest, George | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Miscampbell, Norman | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Glyn, Sir Richard | Monro, Hector | Wylie, N. R. |
| Goodhart, Philip | More, Jasper | |
| Goodhew, Victor | Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gower, Raymond | Murton, Oscar | Mr. R. W. Elliott and |
| Grant, Anthony | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Mr. George Younger. |
| Nicholls, Sir Harmar | ||
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Ashley, Jack | Bence, Cyril |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) |
| Alldritt, Walter | Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Bessell, Peter |
| Archer, Peter | Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Bishop, E. S. |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Barnett, Joel | Blackburn, F. |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hannan, William | Oswald, Thomas |
| Boardman, H. | Harper, Joseph | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Booth, Albert | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
| Boyden, James | Hazell, Bert | Park, Trevor |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Heffer, Eric S. | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Bradley, Tom | Henig, Stanley | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Pentland, Norman |
| Brooks, Edwin | Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hooley, Frank | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Hooson, Emlyn | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W) | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Buchan, Norman | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Howie, W. | Probert, Arthur |
| Cant, R. B. | Hoy, James | Randall, Harry |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Rankin, John |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Redhead, Edward |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Hunter, Adam | Rees, Merlyn |
| Chapman, Donald | Hynd, John | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Coe, Denis | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Richard, Ivor |
| Coleman, Donald | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spen b'gh) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Rose, Paul |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Davies, Robert (Cambridge) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Shore, Peter (Stepney) |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Dempsey, James | Judd, Frank | Silkin, John (Deptford) |
| Dewar, Donald | Kenyon, Clifford | Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Dickens, James | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Dobson, Ray | Lawson George | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Doig, Peter | Leadbitter, Ted | Slater, Joseph |
| Driberg, Tom | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Small, William |
| Dunn, James A. | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lipton, Marcus | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Lomas, Kenneth | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Lubbock, Eric | Stonehouse, John |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | McCann, John | Symonds, J. B. |
| Ellis, John | MacDermot, Niall | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| English, Michael | Macdonald, A. H. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Ennals, David | McGuire, Michael | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Maclennan, Robert | Tomney, Frank |
| Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Fernyhough, E. | McNamara, J. Kevin | Varley, Eric G. |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | MacPherson, Malcolm | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Manuel, Archie | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Mapp, Charles | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Ford, Ben | Marquand, David | Whitaker, Ben |
| Forrester, John | Mason, Roy | Whitlock, William |
| Fowler, Gerry | Millan, Bruce | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Gardner, A. J. | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Ginsburg, David | Neal, Harold | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Newens, Stan | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Norwood, Christopher | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Gregory, Arnold | Oakes, Gordon | |
| Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Ogden, Eric | |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | O'Malley, Brian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Oram, Albert E. | Mr. Charles Grey and |
| Hamling, William | Orbach, Maurice | Mr. R. W. Brown. |
| Orme, Stanley |