HC Deb 22 November 1966 vol 736 cc1214-29
Mr. David Price

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 21, to leave out '£150' and to insert '£50'.

This Amendment deals with the global sum of money which is and can be made available to the Corporation. We are proposing that the figure of £150 million which the Government have put in the Bill is excessive. I have proposed the lesser sum of £50 million. In fact, as I shall try to show, we think that in proposing £50 million we are being more than generous to the I.R.C. in fulfilling that part of its rôle which is specific and for which it would be possible for us on this side even marginally to approve.

When we questioned Ministers about the relevance of this sum of £150 million in the earlier stages of our discussion of the Bill, we received two general arguments. The first was stated by the Minister of State when he said: In recent years, the amount of money being spent annually on mergers and subsidiary acquisitions, and so on, is in the region of £300 million. With all these considerations in mind, we arrived at the figure of £150 million. Of course, that argument was shot down in flames by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who pointed out, quite rightly, that it was not the task of the I.R.C., even on the Government's terms, to take over all the firms whom they were assisting to merge but rather to act as a catalyst. I think that the Minister of State acknowledged that fact, although it is not registered in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings.

The plain fact is that the total turnover, in terms of assets of firms merged, is quite irrelevant to a consideration of what is the proper sum of money to make available to the I.R.C. I am sure that that is recognised on both sides of the House.

That figure of £300 million a year turnover in terms of mergers does not assist the House in determining what would be the proper sum to make available to the I.R.C. We therefore fall back on the second argument deployed in Committee by the Minister of State, when he said: In the end, I must say that we cannot possibly consider reducing the sum of £150 million. We have arrived at it after careful consideration, and we are quite certain that it is the right sort of figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 10th November, 1966, c. 218–9, 219.] I must confess that so far we have not had the benefit of results of the Government's careful consideration, although we have had repeated assurances of their certainty. I very much hope that they will at least tonight give us the benefit of some of their careful considerations, because I am sure that, even if they are not interested in our views, at least some of their hon. Friends will wish to have assurances. I propose that, even on the terms of the I.R.C., as proposed by the Government, £150 million is far too much. I shall endeavour, as briefly as possible, to give the heads of my reasons for saying that.

First, it is not necessary for an industrial merger programme to produce a large dowry. At most a little short-term bridging finance is all that might be required. We went into this matter in Standing Committee and we also delved further.

My second argument is my reference to other public bodies. The House will recall that it was only as recently as 1965 that fresh legislation was passed to raise the financial limit of that admirable body the N.R.D.C. from £10 million to £25 million. I put it to the House, does the I.R.C. need six times the capital of the N.R.D.C.? This is an extremely important point, because in order to feel our way through the maze of factors which come into our determination of the right amount of money to be given this body we could do worse than refer to what has been considered for parallel, if dissimilar, bodies.

My third reason is that at a time of financial stringency this is an absurdly large sum with which to equip the I.R.C. The Minister of State will no doubt point out that it is not proposed that the whole of that £150 million should be available to the I.R.C. in the current financial year. Of course it is not, and we acknowledge that; but £30 million has been allocated in this fiscal year—and I would remind the House of this fact, which I brought up on Second Reading, but about which I had no comment from the Minister of Technology in reply.

If hon. Members were to look at Cmnd. No. 2974 dated April, 1966, entitled "Loans from the Consolidated Fund 1966 to 1967"—the current financial year—they will find these words: The best estimate of the amount that may be required —it is referring to the I.R.C.— in 1966–67 is £30 million, of which £20 million would be loans from the Consolidated Funds and £10 million advances of capital from votes. The Government are therefore forecasting—we will not hold them to a million here or there—that something of the order of £30 million will be required in the first year of the Corporation's operation, which is more than the refreshed capital of the N.R.D.C. I ask the House to ponder this at a time of financial stringency, which brings me to my fourth heading of disagreement over the choice of the sum of £150 million, and that is the other competing costs on public capital.

I emphasise that I am looking at this on capital account and not on current and recurring expenditure. We see the need for new medical schools. We see the problems that are being experienced in the university building programme. Let us look at the field of technology, with particular reference to computers. We know, because I had this reply earlier this week, that there are at present 65 computers in use in the public service. For a capital expenditure of £100 million the Government could have a choice, if we go to the smaller end, of 50,000 Elliott 920 computers, including full installation cost; or, if we refer to the larger computers, the Government could have 1,000 of the middle range of the I.C.T. 1900 series.

Which is more important, to give this additional £100 million to the I.R.C—I am proposing £50 million, which seems fair enough, but they want £150 million—as against having 1,000 new I.C.T. computers We know that the Government could not handle that number all at one go, but I am showing the relative choice which has been made by the Government.

Hon. Members who are interested in the future needs of the Navy know that £100 million would go an awfully long way towards producing that aircraft carrier programme which we are told we cannot afford. I am not here to speak on behalf of the Royal Navy—I simply mention that. It is very nearly the difference between buying the F111 and keeping the TSR2.

As for the Health Service—a matter on which I have more knowledge than on the subject of aircraft carriers—£100 million of public capital means 4,000 general practitioner health centres equipped at a cost of £50,000 each; yet it is considered a higher priority to give the I.R.C. £150 million of public capital.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

There is expected to be a return from I.R.C.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Price

That is something about which we have not heard. The hon. Member is entitled to retain his hopes, but I would not have thought that they constitute a good basis for planning at the present stage. So much for the Government's sense of priorities. I hope we shall hear a little less from them in the future about priorities being good for Socialism, because they are not being very good Socialists.

I can sum up my arguments in the language of our former colleague, A. P. Herbert, who said: Well, fancy giving money to the Government! Might as well have put it down the drain. Fancy giving money to the Government! Nobody will see the stuff again. Well, they've no idea what money's for— Ten to one they'll start another war. I've heard a lot of silly things, but, Lor'! Fancy giving money to the Government. That appeared in a poem entitled "Too Much", and we think that £150 million is too much. I therefore hope that my Amendment will lend itself to the House.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis (Morcambe and Lonsdale)

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) referred to the discussions in Committee on the question of the global sum which the I.R.C. was to have the power to commit. This figure goes to the heart of the Bill concerning financial provisions. Whilst the Minister of State endeavoured during the Committee stage to satisfy me on a number of points, I felt that his reply, when this matter was discussed in Committee, was perhaps the most unsatisfactory and disturbing—I use the word "disturbing" with some emphasis—of all. He said in column. 218 of our Committee reports: There is no scientific way of arriving at the correct amount of capital or resources which the Corporation should have at its disposal. If the Bill has been brought forward by the Department of Economic Affairs—and I hope I am in the right Department in these rather confusing days—then surely this Department, above all, must realise that in industry today it is not enough just to give a decision. One has to quantify the decision, reduce it to mathematical terms, and say whether it is so much better or so much worse than various alternatives.

If the Minister really set his mind, with those of his advisers, and made a study of the sums involved, I do not believe that the outcome would be quite so barren as his comments made in the Committee stage would lead us to believe. I have not at my disposal the resources of the Department of Economic Affairs, but I did see a table published some time ago, and I referred to it in the Committee stage. I have since had another look at it. It gives us only some idea of the scale involved, but it is a list of the 150 largest companies in the United Kingdom tabulated in net asset order at the end of 1963. The list starts with I.C.I., with net assets of £893 million, and goes down through the next 149 companies to those with £20 million asset value. I was rather pleased to see that my ranging shot was not so wide of the target as it might have been.

The top 75 companies might well be able to arrange their own mergers, though I must add that the chairman-designate of the Corporation might not entirely share my views. The next 75 companies have net assets ranging from £40 million to £20 million, and their total net assets, in the round, were £2,000 million when the table was compiled. The sum of £150 million represents 7½ per cent. of those total net assets.

Bearing in mind what the Minister of State has just very obligingly, from the point of view of my argument, repeated—that he hopes that in many mergers the Corporation will not need to inject any capital at all—it is probably reasonable to say that £150 million would be sufficient to meet the needs for cash injection in merging each of those 75 of what one might call the Division 2 companies in the table. I do not put this forward as a mathematical and exact proposition, but it relates the sum to the type and scale of merger that is feasible.

It is, therefore, fair to say that this sum cannot be needed for effecting mergers that may be contemplated in that foreseeable future, and I should like the Minister of State to justify this figure in more detail. If one comes to that conclusion, it generates suspicion that the money will be used for ill-judged new ventures, which is possible under Clause 2(1,b), or for supporting declining industries.

A little later in that reply, the Minister of State said that … some people thought that the sum in the Bill was too much and…some people thought that it was too little."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 10th November, 1966; c. 218.] Why do the Minister and the Government think that this sum is right? I am not interested, in this context, in what some unknown people say—although having listened to this debate today it is not difficult to think of some people who might think the amount too much and others who think it too little. If the Minister cannot support his view with quantified arguments and examples, I believe that the insertion of such a large figure as this in the Bill at random—which is what it amounts to—is an indication of the incompetence and failure of Ministers to discharge their responsibilities to the taxpayer.

Here the Government would be committing £150 million of the taxpayers' money with a degree of care and examination less than most commercial firms give to the disbursement of their petty cash. I therefore ask the Minister to tell us in more detail how the Government arrive at £150 million. If he does not, I must say in all seriousness that he has no right to ask the House to put such a large sum at the disposal of the I.R.C.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I have not much to add to what my hon. Friends have said, but I have been studying with great care what the First Secretary said in the Second Reading debate on 19th October, from which I gather that this figure of £150 million has presumably been arrived at because it is a sum … which will enable the Corporation to carry on for several years, by which time it will probably be self-financing ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 227.] On the face of it, that is a perfectly reasonable point, but in that debate we were never given any supporting facts to show how that assertion had been arrived at, nor, from my study of the Committee proceedings, have I been able to find what led the right hon. Gentleman to say it.

It is obviously desirable that, if set up, the Corporation should as soon as possible get out of the pocket of the State, and if it can by wise early investment or lending eventually ensure that it builds up its own resources to employ in the future, that will be excellent. As it is, we are faced—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has raised this topic—with the State, operating through the N.R.D.C., involved in some extremely important projects, of which the hovercraft is one. We know that the N.R.D.C. could do with a lot more money than it is getting, even with the additional £25 million, yet we have this completely new body starting off with £150 million.

I cannot help wondering whether what is in mind is that the people who will matter to the Corporation in the early days are the bigger people. There is too often in the mind of the Government—and not only of the particular Departments represented here tonight—the belief that the only people who can speak for British industry are such men as Sir Paul Chambers, at the head of colossi. The British people who really earn the country its keep are often not those people, excellent though many of them are—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has been with I.C.I.—but a multitude of smaller companies which are slaving away to keep the country going and to keep afloat themselves in our present economic stringency. Those people are often far more export-conscious than many of the bigger people.

I hope we shall not have the Corporation assuming that in order to do anything it can move only into the £2 million-company bracket and start adding another £10 million to bring about a merger with a company with £5 million. That is the wrong end at which to start. The Corporation will find that some of the smaller companies, which are finding things very difficult in the present stringency and with the falling total investment figure, would welcome assistance. I therefore begin to wonder whether this figure of £150 million has not been arrived at because the exercise visualised for the Corporation starts at the wrong end. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will elucidate that point for us.

When we have a body such as the N.R.D.C. borrowing up to £25 million and this new body, the I.R.C., coming in and being able to borrow up to £150 million, we must be quite sure that there will be a proper relationship from the R. and D. point of view, and between the Corporation and the N.R.D.C., which will ensure that the Corporation, if it is at a loss where else to go among the industries in which it may be particularly interested at the moment, at least knows that the N.R.D.C. is there as well to assist. Where we have the State entering industry, as it now is, it is very important that the fullest advantage should be taken by each part in the State exercise of the other existing parts.

Mr. R. B. Cant (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

When we talk about rationalisation, should we not remember that the only comparable institution, going back to the thirties, was the Bankers Industrial Development Corporation, which was given so little money that people called it "Brought In Dead"—and it died shortly afterwards? Should we not, therefore, err on the side of generosity?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I hope that nothing out of that period will be taken as a precedent for what we are doing now. This is a completely different matter.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

I am somewhat concerned that the same thing is happening in the Chamber as happened in Committee upstairs. As I pointed out in Committee, we are tending to become rather to cosy in discussing this matter. Some of the fire which we had earlier from the West Country has gone out of the debate and we are in danger of slipping something on to the Statute Book which is very different from what the Government have been trying to describe to us is meant to be done by the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) reminded us that £150 million is a great deal of money and that we should err on the side of spending too little rather than too much. Perhaps we are spending too much. My hon. Friend related the figure of £150 million to other Government investment in research, even in their defence activities.

My hon. Friends and I have been a united but reasonable Opposition today. We have been reasonable with a reasonable Minister. I wish I could say that this is a reasonable Bill. However, there are far too many loose ends in the Bill and too many ill-conceived provisions. There is about the Measure a slackness in drafting which—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not a Third Reading debate. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Crouch

I accept your correction, Mr. Speaker. I allowed my remarks to wander because, in referring to £150 million as being the price of the Bill, I tended to consider the whole aspect of the Measure.

The admission that we must have this figure of £150 million written into the Bill is similar to so much else that is loose in the phrasing of the Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh was right to suggest that we should examine whether this is not too grand a figure for the purposes of the Bill. After all, the Minister said that the Bill had no power to compel. He has been at pains to persuade us that it has no compulsory powers and, in a bland way, he tried to explain that it is not even a strong Bill. Nevertheless, since £150 million is involved, it must be strong.

I suggest that if, as I believe, the Bill has been loosely constructed to enable it to perform greater functions than the Minister has suggested—that it has been given this special monetary strength to enable it to perform the sort of functions about which I am concerned for the future—we must be very careful in considering every provision of it.

Mr. Albu

I wonder if the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) was speaking with his tongue in his cheek because I found his arguments extraordinary and they had very little to do with the Amendment. He began, as did his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), by comparing the proposed Corporation with the N.R.D.C., although they are quite different bodies. My hon. Friends welcome the enthusiasm with which the N.R.D.C. is now supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, remembering that it was introduced by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister at the time of the first Labour Government after the war and that it has been most successful. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is more directly concerned with N.R.D.C. than I am, but we are both anxious to continue to support it to the full

The N.R.D.C. on the other hand, is a completely different animal, from the I.R.C. It is not in business to set up trading bodies or companies but to support research and development and to see that the products of that R. & D. are taken up by companies and properly exploited It therefore does not need the sort of money, even as a revolving capital fund, that the Corporation will require.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh, like his hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), went on to consider the sums of money that will be available to the Corporation and to compare them with the sums involved in forms of current Government expenditure. They were, in that process, comparing chalk and cheese, as anybody experienced in industry will be aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made this clear.

In the debate we had earlier, when discussing the word "profitable", hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to suggest that we should spend a lot more money on a great many unprofitable things. The hon. Member for Eastleigh gave no indication of how the purchase of 1,000 computers would be profitable. We have found in the past that hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to spend Government money on R. & D. without giving any consideration to the question of profitability. Britain simply could not tolerate that state of affairs and we have put a stop to it.

I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that at present proposals for R. & D. are considered most seriously from their profitability point of view, even if in the rather longer term in some cases, and we do not allow this expenditure just to pile up, with Government funds being spent on R. & D. projects merely because certain things happen to look nice.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). Surely there comes a point when, say, the N.R.D.C. has done its R. & D. work and believes that it is on a world-beater, that the real task of exploiting the project is necessary. Is that not one way to approach this problem?

Mr. Albu

Of course it is, and I have no doubt that the Corporation may be able to help some times in getting such inventions exploited, but it will be doing it under different conditions and with different objectives compared with those of the N.R.D.C. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked what sort of connection there would be between the two organisations. I assure him that the very fact that the Bill is sponsored jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Technology guarantees that there will be proper consultation on these matters.

I turn to the case made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), who made an able speech, as he did on many occasions in Committee. I do not believe that there is a scientific formula by which one may know precisely the amount of money that should be provided for the Corporation. If there is such a formula, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would tell me it because there are a number of other spheres in which it could be of assistance. If he thinks that Ministers and officials, having made a thorough study, suddenly arrived at this figure, he is wrong. I gave some of the details in Committee and pointed out that one might compare the sum with the recommendations of the Geddes Report on shipbuilding, which said that £40 million of public money would be necessary.

Mr. Hordern

Since the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Geddes Report, are we to understand, first, that the I.R.C. might have some part to play in the reconstruction of the shipbuilding industry and, secondly, is it possible that the I.R.C. will be called upon to provide money for the joint venture in the aircraft industry announced yesterday?

Mr. Albu

As to the second, it is highly unlikely because I should imagine that the sum required would be too large, given the figure in the Bill. As to the first point, the answer is no. The Shipbuilding Industry Board is a separate body and, although the Corporation might well find scope for its activities in the field of components and parts which the engineering industry supplies to the shipbuilding industry, I do not think it will operate in the shipbuilding industry proper.

In many cases where the Corporation has to invest it may have to do so in figures of something like £5 million to £10 million. I agree that this will vary from large to small companies. We have looked at what has happened in the private sector, and I have some examples which might help hon. Members to make up their minds. For instance, I.C.I., made £10 million available to Mr. Joe Hyman to build up Vyella International as a very necessary rationalisation. Hawker Siddeley made a cash offer of over £19 million to gain control of R. A. Lister, which was a diversification. Rolls Royce raised £20 million by debenture issue before going into the proposed merger with Bristol Siddeley.

Hon. Members raised the question of the £300 million which I quoted in Committee and again asked whether this was an incorrect or unfair figure because in many cases it was not cash which passed but an exchange of shares and so forth. In order to help hon. Members, I have gone into this matter further. In the period 1959 to 1963, when publicly quoted companies spent an average of about £335 million a year on acquisitions, cash payments accounted on average for about £145 million of this total a year. Since that time the number of mergers has been increasing, and it is of course the job of the I.R.C. to increase them further.

It does not seem, therefore, that these resources are excessive in relation to what has been going on and what it is intended that the Corporation should do. We have examined the matter carefully and have arrived at the best judgment we could make. I would remind hon.

Members that this sum is to last for five years and would amount to only £30 million a year. But that amount of money will not be required at one time. It will be issued from the Consolidated Fund as and when required, and in some years it may not all be required. It is not comparable to the vast sums of money which the hon. Member for Eastleigh wanted to be spent on unknown and rather unprofitable enterprises.

Mr. David Price

The Minister of State was not fair when he said that there is no comparison between the N.R.D.C. and the I.R.C. I said that there was a parallel. A very strong case can be made for saying that the N.R.D.C. needs more working capital than the I.R.C., particularly if the I.R.C. is working catalytically.

The hon. Gentleman accused me in the examples I gave—again by reference to what £100 million of Government capital means—of mixing current and capital outlay. I did not do so. All the items I chose were of a capital nature. It is true that the National Health Service happens to finance building of new clinics under current expenditure, but that is a typically bad example of financing under all Governments. For computers the Treasury is using the technique of investment, which shows that the Treasury regards that as a capital item. It is not unfair to draw the parallels which I used and to compare things which, of course, are not alike in the physical sense but which have the common denominator of money and the common yardstick of how we deploy our resources.

As to the examples about Listers and other companies, the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair. Although cash passed, these were acquisitions. They were not a fair comparison to the catalytic rôle which the I.R.C. will play. We are still unsatisfied that the choice of £150 million is right and we wish to press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That "£150" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 102.

Division No. 203.] AYES [7.16 p.m.
Albu, Austen Archer, Peter Barnes, Michael
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Armstrong, Ernest Harriett, Joel
Alldritt, Walter Atkins, Ronald (Presto;;, N.) Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Anderson, Donald Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Bidwell, Sydney
Bishop, E. S. Hamling, William Oakes, Gordon
Blackburn, F. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Blenkinsop, Arthur Haseldine, Norman Oram, Albert E.
Boardman, H. Hazell, Bert Orme, Stanley
Booth, Albert Henig, Stanley Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Boston, Terence Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hooley, Frank Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hooson, Emlyn Pardoe, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Horner, John Parker, John (Dagenham)
Buchan, Norman Howie, W. Pavitt, Laurence
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hoy, James Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pentland, Norman
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, Adam Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Cant, R. B. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Carmichael, Neil Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Chapman, Donald Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) Price, William (Rugby)
Coe, Denis Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Probert, Arthur
Concannon, J. D. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Randall, Harry
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Richard, Ivor
Dalyell, Tarn Kelley, Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Kenyon, Clifford Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lawson, George Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Leadbitter, Ted Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Ledger, Ron Rose, Paul
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, John (Reading) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dell, Edmund Lestor, Miss Joan Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ryan, John
Dunn, James A. Lomas, Kenneth Sheldon, Robert
Dunnett, Jack Loughlin, Charles Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Luard, Evan Skeffington, Arthur
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'ham & C'b's) Lubbock, Eric Slater, Joseph
Eadie, Alex Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Small, William
Edelman, Maurice McBride, Neil Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) McCann, John Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, John Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Faulds, Andrew Mackie, John Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Fernyhough, E. Mackintosh, John P. Varley, Eric G.
Finch, Harold McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Floud, Bernard Maginnis, John E. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foley, Maurice Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Watkins, David (Consett)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Forrester, John Manuel, Archie Weitzman, David
Fowler, Gerry Mapp, Charles Wellbeloved, James
Fraser, John (Norwood) Marquand, David Whitlock, William
Galpern, Sir Myer Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Wilkins, W. A.
Garrow, Alex Mayhew, Christopher Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Millan, Bruce Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Gourlay, Harry Miller, Dr. M. S. Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Grey, Charles (Durham) Molloy, William Winnick, David
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moonman, Eric Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winterbottom, R. E.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Morris, John (Aberavon) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Moyle, Roland
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Murray, Albert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Fitch and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cunningham, Sir Knox Hawkins, Paul
Astor, John Currie, G. B. H. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lione.
Awdry, Daniel Dalkeith, Earl of Hiley, Joseph
Balniel, Lord Dance, James Hill, J. E. B.
Batsford, Brian Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Hirst, Geoffrey
Biffen, John Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Holland, Philip
Biggs-Davison, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hordern, Peter
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Errington, Sir Eric Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Farr, John Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kirk, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fortescue, Tim Kitson, Timothy
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Foster, Sir John Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bullus, Sir Eric Glyn, Sir Richard Loveys, W. H.
Burden, F. A. Grant, Anthony Maddan, Martin
Chichester-Clark, R. Gurden, Harold Marten, Neil
Clegg, Walter Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maude, Angus
Cooke, Robert Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Corfield, F. V. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monro, Hector
Costain, A. P. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Crawley, Aidan Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Moire, Jasper Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Ridsdale, Julian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Russell, Sir Ronald Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Sharples, Richard Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Walters, Dennis
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sinclair, Sir George Webster, David
Page, Graham (Crosby) Smith, John Whitelaw, William
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Stainton, Keith Wille, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Peyton, John Stodart, Anthony Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pink, R. Bonner Summers, Sir Spencer Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Price, David (Eastleigh) Talbot, John E.
Prior, J. M. L. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pym, Francis Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Younger.