§
Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 10, line 30, at end insert:
Provided that no provision having compulsory effect shall come into force before the expiration of five years after the coming into force of this section.
§ Mr. PeartI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We had a long discussion on Clause 9 which, as the House will know, provides for the Meat and Livestock Commission, subject to Ministerial approval, to develop schemes which are conducive to the proper organisation, development or regulation of any section of the livestock products industries. Any scheme submitted would first have to pass through all the procedures and safeguards laid down in Clause 2 and Schedule 2. We debated this considerably. If the Minister approved the scheme, it would be subject to an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
The Amendment would prevent any provision for a development scheme for the compulsory rationalisation or concentration of a section of the industry from taking effect until five years after 371 the Bill had been enacted and the Section came into force. It will come as no surprise to those who have followed our many debates on Clause 9 to hear me ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
The Clause includes wide powers, but they are properly safeguarded and can be used only as the Clause provides, for the industry's improvement. Of course, we have looked at this again, but I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that these powers will be needed before five years has elapsed. However, the Commission must be able to cope with every eventuality. After all, the industry is developing rapidly. Changes are taking place in the methods used and in the structure of the industry, from the farm to the retail shop. New problems are bound to emerge as these changes occur.
The Bill specifically provides for the Commission to perform all the functions for which there is a case at present, but we must also give the Commission some room to adapt its functions to changing circumstances. I emphasise that, at this stage, we cannot assert that no changes in the Commission's rôle will be necessary before the middle of 1972.
The Amendment would, if accepted, substantially weaken the legislative provisions which enable the Commission to deal with future developments. It would weaken it unnecessarily because these reserve powers are so hedged around with safeguards that they will not be used—during the first five years or at any other time—unless the case for using them has been properly made out.
§ 7.13 p.m.
§ Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)I disagreed with everything but the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I very much agreed with his reference to Tom Williams. My hon. Friends retain affectionate memories of Tom Williams and of all he did and sought to do for agriculture. We were very glad that the Minister took this opportunity to pay tribute to him. We endorse his remarks.
Tom Williams was essentially a reasonable man. I believe that had this Amendment been put to him in the way in which it was put in another place he would have realised the value of this com- 372 promise and would not have adopted the arrogant and arbitrary action of the Government in this matter.
We have discussed this issue for many months, in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House. We have pointed out to the Minister that the powers contained in Clause 9 are not necessary at all, let alone after a lapse of five years. Noble Lords in another place took a tolerant view in suggesting that the Commission should try to work without these powers for five years.
It is fantastic that the Minister has rejected the olive branch which has been held out by another place in regard to this most obnoxious Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments were almost incredible. He said that the powers of compulsion—and they are powers of compulsion in every respect; compulsion even for restricting or closing down undertakings—were needed, but although we have asked him time and again why he needs them, he has not once given us the answer. He merely says that they are subject to the restrictions contained in Schedule 2—and that, he believes, makes them perfectly respectable.
The Government's attitude towards the Amendment is indicative of their attitude to so many things. Only yesterday a Minister was claiming that he needed compulsory powers, not because he wanted to use them but because he wanted them as a method of obtaining agreement until compulsion became necessary. The same argument is being used in this context. The Government feel so unsure of themselves that they must have compulsion behind them. It is fantastic that these compulsory powers should have been clung to by the Minister in spite of the reasonable arguments my hon. Friends and I have adduced against them right from the inception of the Bill, remembering that our discussions have been going on for a long time.
We have reminded the Minister of the dangers in having these powers. The right hon. Gentleman has never justified them and although, in another place, our noble Friends have taken the view that the Commission should be given an opportunity to show what it can do by persuasion, that view is now to be rejected out of hand. I find it difficult to understand this arrogant attitude on the 373 part of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly since in another place Lord Walston, in resisting this proposal, dwelt on the reasonableness, as he called it, of the Commission and said:
One would have thought that the Livestock Commission, instead of being a body of reasonable people set up to promote the efficiency of the livestock industry in all its aspects, with the object ultimately of giving the consumer better quality at lower price, and thereby helping the producer to get a better living … a body with strictly limited powers … was an autocratic, dictatorial and completely autonomous body …The noble Lord was developing his argument to show that he was referring to reasonable people. If they are as reasonable as he claims, can it be said that within five years of being set up, with the enormous problems that will confront them, they will want to start using autocratic, dictatorial powers? Surely in that time they will not have developed sufficient powers of persuasion in this complex industry. The Government are indeed adopting an extraordinary attitude.The Minister is wrong to say that the powers in the Clause are subject to a great deal of checking in various ways. They are subject to checks by the Minister, but not to adequate check by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were subject to an Affirmative Resolution. That is true, but such a Resolution must be accepted or rejected in toto. If the Minister brings forward something Which he thinks is satisfactory, but which my hon. Friends feel is tolerable, with certain reservations, we will be unable to amend the Minister's proposal. We will be presented with a blanket position which we must either accept or reject. In this connection, Lord Walston said:
… subject, in this particular instance at least, to the very detailed control of the appropriate Ministers and of Parliament itself …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th March, 1967; Vol. 280, c. 1239.]That is not true, because although whatever is proposed may be subject to the detailed control of the Minister, it will not, for the reasons I have given, be subject to the detailed control of Parliament itself.I do not understand why the Minister has dug his toes in over this matter. Right from the start he has insisted that these compulsory powers are necessary. Time and again we have asked him to give the 374 purposes for which they are likely to be required during the early years of the Commission's operations, but we have had no answer. The right hon. Gentleman says that he needs these reserve powers for the Commission. Why should it be necessary to compel? After all, the purpose of the Clause is stated to be to meet future developments in the industry for livestock and livestock products. Why is compulsion necessary in this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Commission will be unable to encourage alone? Has he so little confidence in its powers of persuasion?
When we first examined the Bill we said that the Clause was obnoxious and we sought to delete it. Our colleagues in another place have adopted a more conciliatory attitude and have suggested that the Commission be given an opportunity to build itself up so that we may ascertain its position—then, after five years, these powers of compulsion would come into force. But even this reasonable attitude is not sufficient for the Minister. His decision in this matter represents an indictment of the whole attitude of the Government. We deplore it and will vote against this obnoxious Motion.
§ Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)May I, first, join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) in paying tribute to the late Tom Williams, and perhaps quote one of his utterances, which is appropriate at this moment. I remember that he once said that Governments go when they are pushed and that they are like wheelbarrows. That remark is capable of two interpretations. To get action out of the Government requires considerable pushing all too often, but sometimes dismissal of a Government requires even more—
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeI can only suppose that the Government have come to the conclusion that the House should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment as a result of having realised that no longer can they hope to persuade the people. The county council elections have taught them that, and they have decided to resort to methods of compulsion.
It is worth recalling that, under Clause 2 of the Bill, the Meat and Livestock 375 Commission is given fairly clear instructions. If, for example, as a result of its exercising its powers, there might be a substantial effect on the interests of persons engaged in the production of livestock, the Commission has to consult the Production Committee. If the Commission's action is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of persons engaged in the marketing or distribution of livestock, it has to consult the Distribution Committee. If it appears to the Commission—[Interruption.] I can understand the Government's anxiety. What I am trying to show is that if the Commission were to exercise its powers under Clause 9 and any of these effects were likely to flow from its doing so, in certain cases it has to consult the Production Committee, in other cases it has to consult the Distribution Committee, and if the Commission does anything which is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of consumers, it has to consult the Consumers Committee.
If it is to fulfil this rôle—[Interruption.] The Minister had better listen—
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeI will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when he has listened—
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeI will give way to him when I have made my point. If, in the exercise of any of the compulsory powers under Clause 9, its action is likely to have an effect either on production, distribution, or consumption, the Commission is under an obligation to consult the appropriate committee, be it the production Committee, the Distribution Committee, or the Consumers Committee.
I should have thought that that, necessarily, would require a considerable time for a proper assessment to be made of the effect of the use of the compulsory powers under Clause 9; yet the Minister is trying to deny to producers particularly a right which Government after Government have insisted upon whenever they have held a majority in the House, and that is five years in which to fulfil their programme.
The Minister is saying that at the moment the Commission takes unto itself powers under this Clause and tries to 376 eliminate excess capacity, to reduce the number of undertakings engaged or gives permission for new undertakings or the relocation of existing ones to take place, there shall be nothing like the length of time which a Government require to do their business. This has to come into force immediately.
Either the Minister thinks that time for consultation is required, or that whatever the Commission decides should come into force at once. He does not challenge anything in Clause 2, which gives time for consultation with the various committees which are set up, but he says in Clause 9 that their Lordships were wrong in trying to insist that producers should be given five years in which to be persuaded that what the Commission was proposing was right.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I will do so now.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeIf the Minister thinks that this is too long and involved, it is all the more reason why we on this side should vote against the Motion. This is typical of the Labour Party when it has a setback, be it minor or major. The first reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is to become dictatorial.
By his attitude, the Minister is showing beyond doubt, especially in view of his recent interruption, that in his mind the Commission has always to be right and that the interests of those who are to be eliminated as having provided excess capacity are not to be considered.
§ Mr. PeartI am not saying that the Commission must always be right. That is why we have the safeguard. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill and our discussions carefully. There is a Parliamentary safeguard, and he will see that that is in the Bill, as it stands.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeI know that there is a Parliamentary safeguard, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the difficulty which we are always under when we try to exercise Parliamentary safeguards. We are told by the Government of the day that the legislative programme does not permit of discussion of it.
377 I am thinking of my constituents, those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, may I say, of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not taken the trouble to turn up for this debate. I am thinking of people who are trying to produce meat for the consumption of the British people.
The Minister's attitude on their Lordships' Amendment shows that he does not consider that someone who is likely to be put out of business by the Meat and Livestock Commission should be given time to be persuaded that what the Commission is trying to do is right. It is thoroughly undemocratic. This is a tyrannical trend which is all too typical of Labour Party policy on agriculture and other subjects which we detest so heartily.
§ Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)This Bill, like the poor, seems always to be with us. It is now two years and some months since it was first introduced into the House. It has been debated at length in Committee, and through all its stages we have been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that speed is of the essence and that it is essential in the interests of British farmers that no delay should take place. As a result, we hurried on and we collaborated with him. We allowed him to have the most contentious Clauses with the minimum of debate. I remember on one occasion—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little far from the Amendment on the Order Paper.
§ Sir F. PearsonI shall certainly obey your instruction, Sir. I had considered that just a little background information before we got to the meat of it would not be altogether out of place, because it has a certain relevance to the arguments that I wish to develop.
The point I wish to establish initially is the question of speed in the passage of the Bill. That has certain reference to the delaying power for five years, which is linked with this Amendment. The Bill is an important Measure which is to be rushed through the House. We were asked to take it in one long night's debate 378 which could have been spread over a number of days. It has since been considered in their Lordships' House over a period in which many useful and valuable Amendments were introduced. So far as we can tell, they are to be accepted by the Minister. We can therefore say that the length of debate has improved this important Measure.
I was extremely disappointed, however, when the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that this, probably the most important Amendment before us today, was to be rejected by him. It was rejected in an extremely cavalier fashion. Not one single sound reason was adduced for not accepting this Amendment.
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)Now that the hon. Member is speaking about sound reason, can he say whether there was one instance in legislative history when compulsory powers were brought in by an Act and delayed for five years?
§ Sir F. PearsonWith their reforming zeal, I should not have thought that hon. Members opposite would fear to break new ground. We are extremely glad to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), the only back-bench hon. Member whom the Minister has been able to encourage to come here this afternoon. The more that he intervenes the happier that I shall be to sit down.
§ Mr. Bert Hazell (Norfolk, North)I hope the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) recognises that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North is also in his place.
§ Sir F. PearsonI am extremely glad that that fact has been drawn to our notice. We hope that the hon. Member will enlighten our debate with his deep knowledge and will try to ensure that, in this great meat industry, we achieve a measure of fairness and justice, which I am certain the Minister himself would wish to achieve. The atmosphere in recent days has changed substantially from the atmosphere in which we debated this Bill in Committee.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment, which is concerned with postponement of compulsory powers for five years.
§ Sir F. PearsonI shall try to keep to the Amendment. May I say briefly that the atmosphere has changed in recent days—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Briefly or not, the hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.
§ Sir F. PearsonThe Amendment is proposed to the second part of Clause 9. I do not think the House recognises how wide Clause 9(2) is and just what this Amendment is trying to achieve. I remind the House of the basic bare bones of subsection (2). It lays down the conditions under which a development scheme may be introduced for the reorganisation of the meat industry and the meat processing industry, but it does not confine itself to the meat industry and the meat processing industry. It also extends to the meat production industry. Any farmer producing beef on a livestock basis comes within the purview of this Clause. Under subsection (2,a)—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member has any objections to make I shall be grateful if he will do so now.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerYes. The hon. Member is perfectly right about subsection (2) but he is not addressing himself to the Amendment, at least in the remarks he has made so far.
§ Sir F. PearsonI am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to confine myself to the Amendment. I wish to develop an argument in regard to the delay of five years which is based on certain words in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2).
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am not objecting to the hon. Member mentioning those paragraphs, but I ask him to link that with the Amendment.
§ Sir F. PearsonSubsection (2,a) lays down
provisions for compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacitywhich may be the subject of a development order. Surely the first function the Commission has to perform is to pursue the question of whether it can pursue its object of rationalising the industry by encouraging it. Before it can do that it has to have a complete survey of what the industry is, what it is about and what the individual units of production will be.380 It is to this point that I wish to link the Amendment. There can be no valid reason why we should not legislate for a five-year delay. Is it reasonable to suppose that we can set up the Commission and the sub-committees and that those sub-committees can survey the industry and see what functions are being performed, and by what units, and then come to their decision as to what parts of the industry should be eliminated in less time? When we think of what elimination of a part of the industry means in human terms we realise that it can mean telling an individual producer that he has to cease production. It can mean cutting off a man's livelihood and telling an individual producer of livestock that he may no longer go on producing that livestock. These are very serious powers.
§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)Has my hon. Friend noticed that the word "comjielling" comes before the word "encouraging"? The phrase is, "compelling or encouraging". Does he not read some significance in this order of words in the remarks he is making?
§ Sir F. PearsonMy hon. Friend is entirely right. I would much rather see the provision the other way round, but that is not the way in which the Bill has been drawn. Even if the Bill may be subjected to slightly faulty drafting, in actual practice the first thing that will happen will be a survey of the situation. That will take time. Then the process of encouragement will follow, we hope. I cannot believe that this is not going to take five years. Therefore, if the intentions of the Minister in this regard are as honest as he tried to make them out to be, I cannot see that he would lose anything in accepting this five-year period of delay. It would quieten a great number of fears which people at present justifiably hold about the operation of part of this Clause.
In paragraph (b) there is the phrase,
compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings".The whole of an undertaking could be wiped out under these provisions. Again, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be delay in the operation of the compulsory provision. The House could reasonably have asked that a very much more detailed justification should 381 have been given this afternoon for the reasons why the Minister is not accepting this Amendment. Not a single valid reason has been given. In voting against his rejection of the Amendment, as I sincerely hope we shall at the end of this debate, we on this side of the House will be able to feel that we have not only the whole of the agricultural industry behind us but also the largest part of the manufacturing industry and all who wish to stand up for the reasonable rights and freedom of the individual.
§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)A trend has crept into the debate which I do not like. On the Government benches there is a girls school end-of-termish feeling about the Bill. Every time anyone from this side makes a valid and powerful point, it is met with squawks of laughter from the other side. This leads me to believe that the Whips are really on and that whatever we on this side say will have little impact. I hope that this is not so, because this is an important and useful Amendment.
The Minister's speech was one of the most disappointing he has made in the whole long, dreary course of the passage of the Bill. He did not refer to the other functions the Commission will have when it is finally set up. The Commission has an enormous amount of work to do. The functions other than the compulsory powers of the Commission are based on the Report of the Verdon Smith Committee. Part I of Schedule 1, almost three pages of it, set out the functions of the Commission, among which are:
assessing the breeding qualities of livestock … promoting or undertaking performance testing, and progeny testingwhich are vast projects—Giving advice and information to those owning, conducting or using livestock auction marketsand supplying information about market situations, etc.These are tremendous jobs which the Commission must do. It has enough to do in the first five years of its life without trying to shut down and close up and change the structure of the livestock industry and the livestock products industry, without starting on these swingeing and pernicious tasks.
The Minister said that new problems will emerge as changes occur. When the 382 Commission starts going through its functions, which are based on the Report of the Verdon Smith Committee, all sorts of new implications will occur. I repeat that the Commission will have quite enough to do in the first four years of its life without meddling in all these strong and unnecessary powers which are being taken.
We on this side would not mind so much if we knew what these powers were to be used for. The attitude of the Minister and his colleagues during the passage of the Bill has disheartened me probably more than anything else that I have witnessed in the short time I have been in the House. The Minister has given no reason for needing these powers. He has not told us why he needs to do all these sweeping things which could make such a radical change in the livestock and livestock products industries. He has not told us why he needs to eliminate excess capacity. He has not told us why he needs to compel a reduction in the number of undertakings. If we knew this, we could regard these powers with a great deal more charity.
I said in Committee that the Minister was taking power for power's sake. I repeat that. His attitude tonight has shown that he is more intent on the power than with what the power should be used for. Unless the Minister is prepared to be more specific, we should not accept this power. Has the Minister read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, in another place, in which the noble Lord said—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, said in another place, if it was about this Bill, cannot be quoted now.
§ Mr. JoplingI beg your pardon, Sir.
Perhaps I could ask the Minister to consider what I now suggest to him. If he wants to use these compulsory powers, would it not be better to try to do it on a voluntary basis first? Would it not be better for the Commission to see if these things could be done with willing cooperation, which is always a much more satisfactory way of doing things, before these powers are brought to bear?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment, which has to do with five years.
§ Mr. JoplingI am trying to do that, Sir. I am attempting to explain to the House why I think it would be better to try other methods of securing what the Minister wants, instead of taking compulsory powers in the first five years of the Commission's life.
§ Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)My hon. Friend—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman will address the Chair. This helps the Official Reporters.
§ Mr. TempleMy hon. Friend clearly has an enormous grasp of the Bill, having had the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee for two years. Would he help me about one difficult point which is troubling me as to these compulsory powers? Would it not be possible to change the whole environment of a market town by compulsorily closing down a market and thereby taking away the raison d' etre of that town by the use of these compulsory powers? Is not that a fair example of what might happen as a result of the use of these powers?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will not satisfy his hon. Friend's quest for knowledge but will come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. JoplingI will comply with your request, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) served on the Standing Committee for some months. I am grateful to him for pointing this out, because I imagine that many market towns could disappear as a result of the use of these powers.
The Amendment is a reasonable one. We did not discuss it, either in Committee or on Report. I cannot help feeling that, if we on this side had, either in Committee or on Report, proposed that the operation of the Commission's powers be delayed for five years so as to allow the Commission to settle down to operate its other functions before coming to Parliament to ask for these powers, the Minister might well have accepted our proposal. I believe that his only reason for not accepting this proposal now is that it originated in another place. We know what the attitude of hon. Members opposite is to Amendments originating in another place.
384 The Minister has argued that he intends to use these compulsory powers in the interests of flexibility and that it is important that he has these powers so that the Commission can act as it needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) explained that a large proportion of the five years might well elapse before the Commission asked Parliament for the powers. Therefore, the Minister must accept that, if the Commission desired, it could easily spend the last two years of the five-year period preparing for a compulsory scheme and then come to Parliament at the end of five years. I do not believe that the Commission would waste much time in doing that. If the Commission was set in the first 12 months of its life of taking these compulsory powers, it could well be four years before the powers were enacted and put into operation.
The Minister should reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment, having heard what my hon. Friends have said. Little time would be wasted. There could be a breathing space and the Commission could get down to performing those of its functions which are not tied to these compulsory powers.
§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)I hope that I may be allowed, before coming to the Amendment, to pay a small tribute to Mr. Tom Williams, as I always thought of him. As a young farmer, many years ago now, I was most impressed by all he tried to do for agriculture, and above all, I was always very impressed by his attitude towards agriculture. He seemed to me to be a sort of father figure who was willing to lead rather than to push or bully us along—and what a far cry that is from what we are experiencing today.
I support the Amendment. Naturally, we would prefer to throw the whole Clause out, but, if we must have it, then let us delay these powers for five years. This Amendment is a sensible Amendment, in line with our thinking on this side of the House. Since we first discussed this matter on Clause 9, I have talked to farmers and many people in the trade, and I tell the House frankly that I dare not repeat some of the comments which they have made about it. Most of those I have talked to would support the Amendment and want some 385 delay in the powers to be given to the Minister.
I do not believe that anyone really wants these powers, and I cannot understand why the Minister hangs on to the idea that it is necessary to have them.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is now too late to discuss whether the Minister should have these powers. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendment, he will see that it proposes that the powers should not come into operation for five years.
§ Mr. MillsThank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying, but it is a little difficult.
I am arguing that the Minister should delay the operation of the powers for five years. The very idea of compulsion—the word "compulsory" appears in the Amendment—is quite foreign to agriculture and to the trade as a whole. I am certain that the trade would support the Amendment. It may be true that the National Farmers' Union would not support it, but we all know what the N.F.U. wants; it wants even greater powers than these. But we do not. The trade as a whole would support the Amendment, as the Minister knows very well.
I see no hope of success for the Commission unless the Amendment is accepted. The right climate will not be created unless the powers are delayed for five years, and, if the right climate i3 not there, the thing will never work. It is most important, therefore, that, even at this late hour, the Minister should think again and accept the Amendment so as to create the right climate for the Commission to start its work.
It is difficult to keep to the Amendment, but I must add that, unless these powers are done away with and the Amendment is accepted—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. It is a difficulty which has been experienced by many hon. Members in history. He must study the Amendment and then address his argument to it.
§ Mr. MillsAll right, Mr. Speaker.
I shall have to bring my short speech to a close by asking the Minister to think again. Otherwise, he will sabotage the Commission before it ever starts. He 386 must reconsider his whole attitude, realising that the Commission's hope of success will probably depend on his attitude at the end of his debate.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, North-West)I also support the Amendment. I have always urged that these compulsory powers should not be taken at least until the Commission wants them. The Commission could do good for the meat trade, but it will not do so if it starts off in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. People have become fed up with rules and regulations and compulsion of all sorts.
Every weekend I am in touch at markets with the people who have to come into close daily contact with the Commission. Whenever the Bill has been mentioned, they have expressed themselves as fearful of these compulsory powers, feeling that for the Commission to get off to a fair start it should not have compulsory powers because such powers will bedevil their relations, through their organisations, with the Commission in its early days, and it is the early days which can be so important to any organisation as it grows up.
The Minister knows that I am closely connected with one of the organisations, the livestock auctioneers. Eighteen bodies have written to him, from the auctioneers to tripe processers—the whole gamut of livestock and meat producing organisations representing this great trade throughout the land—and all have expressed a unanimous view on this matter. The Minister must realise that these people will not come to the conference table at the first meetings of the Commission if they are to have these compulsory powers held as a sword over their heads. What an atmosphere in which the Commission will have to start.
All we ask is that the compulsory powers be postponed for five years. To get the confidence of the industry, the Minister should, even at this late stage, allow the Commission to ask for the powers to be brought in rather than saddle it with this threat to be held over the heads of the industry.
§ Mr. StaintonI support the Amendment. Generally speaking, I found the Minister to be reasonable in Committee, and I appeal now to his sense of justice 387 and of proportion in this matter in an effort to persuade him to accept the Amendment.
The Amendment raises the question whether compulsory powers are necessary at all. Admittedly, as you have said from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the matter not in those terms, but from the strict standpoint of whether their operation should be postponed for five years. I shall address myself to the question of five years in a vein which, I hope, will allow me to make the other points.
It would be wrong to say that the Verdon Smith Committee recommended that compulsory powers should be withheld for five years—I am trying to dodge round Mr. Speaker's disapproval—but we all know what its recommendation was. The question of postponement for five years must be considered in terms of one's knowledge of the industry. I do not pretend to a profound knowledge, but I have working contacts with the industry.
It is a highly competitive industry which operates on low margins, and it cannot be described as capital-intensive. In contrast to, for example, cotton spinning and weaving, in which there are large concentrations of capital equipment and in which structural changes are difficult to make, this is a low capital using industry in terms of permanent investment on a large scale, and one would think, therefore, that it would be amenable to spontaneous changes within itself, at least for a period of five years, in which time the Government would have an opportunity to see how the situation was developing.
I cannot persuade myself that the Minister thinks very much in terms of compulsion. On reflection, I feel that what he has in mind is residual powers. At least, I hope that he will say explicitly that that is so. If so, there may well be an argument along those lines. We have already heard tonight about the wheelbarrow that might need pushing, and, therefore, there might be an argument for residual powers.
That brings me to the question of the five-year period in the Amendment. Why precipitate compulsory powers forthwith on the Bill's coming into 388 force? Why not leave them for a period of five years, as suggested in the Amendment, to see how things go? I must confess that if one pursued the logic of that argument too far one would detect a grave flaw in the wording, in so far as the axe falls precisely after five years. If there is complete validity in my argument the wording of the Amendment would be more in terms of giving the Commission power to seek the compulsory powers after a period of five years.
I think that the five-year period would ameliorate the strain considerably. There has been a great deal of friction in the trade. As my hon. Friend said, the 18 national organisations involved are pulling together for the first time in living memory in distinct opposition to the powers the Minister seeks on behalf of the Commission.
On all those grounds, I should have thought that delay for five years to see how spontaneous "restructuring" of the industry develops would be the best thing, and then move on from there. I commend the Amendment.
§ Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)In view of all the representations that have been made the Minister should state to the House in what precise circumstances he envisages use of the compulsory powers inside a period of five years. If he wants those powers he should be able to state to the House what those circumstances are. Then we and the country, particularly the meat trade—in which I include the producers—can judge whether the powers are necessary.
We on this side of the House suspect that the reason for the powers is that, like a good Socialist, the Minister has compulsion on the brain. He assumes that compulsion is necessary in all schemes, and he has so little faith in them that he does not believe that he can bring powers of persuasion to bear in less than five years. If the Commission cannot convince the meat trade and other concerned that such a scheme is workable and sensible in less than five years it does not speak well for this part of the Bill.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask himself whether he wants the Commission to get off to a good start. He must realise that the Clause has caused a great 389 deal of suspicion in the minds of those who are concerned with all aspects of meat, including the producers. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) because I think that many producers are doubtful about this part of the Bill, as they like to see competition for what they produce. Some of them are very nervous of some of the streamlining schemes that have been envisaged under the Bill. Some of us do not want all our meat to go to the F.M.C. We like to see the wholesale butchers, the auctioneers and the large combines competing for what we produce, as we then get a fair deal.
Does the Minister want the Commission to get off to a good start? If he wants the good will of those concerned he should fight shy of the compulsory powers being exercised in less than five years.
§ Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)I appeal to the Minister at this late stage to try to take a more tolerant attitude to the representations eloquently made by so many of my hon. Friends. It is disappointing that we have had no contribution from the back benches opposite, because the question is not unimportant. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend intervening from a seated position said, it is not too late for a contribution from the other side. On an important issue of this kind it seems wrong that all the contributions should be from only one side of the House.
The compulsory powers were debated at great length in the Standing Committee, and what we are now discussing is what might be called a compromise. When the Bill was discussed here, we on this side of the House asked that there should be no compulsory powers and the Minister demanded them. What is now put to us from another place is essentially a compromise, namely that the compulsory powers should not be deleted from the Bill but should be postponed for five years. That proposal should not have the abrupt rejection which the Minister has so far indicated.
Unfortunately, I understand that it is not permissible to quote from the debates of this Session in another place. That is a great handicap in a way, because many of the speeches there were very 390 eloquent and persuasive. I think that it would help the House very much if I could have quoted extensively from what was said by Lord Nugent. But I think that I can give the House the tenor of what he said when he put forward the Amendment essentially as a compromise. The success of the Commission will depend on the atmosphere in which it starts its operation. If the provision is bulldozed through in its present form, the Commission will start under the obloquy of any body which is set up with compulsory powers.
Would it not be much better to have a testing period of five years, which would enable the Commission to find its feet, explore its territories, and assess the possibilities of the situation? If it was thought at the end of five years that compulsory powers were suitable we could then, even if the Amendment is accepted, allow the Commission to go forward on a compulsory basis. Is it worth falling out over a question of five years at this stage?
One thing we have learnt from both sides of the House in our agricultural discussions is that what is important in agriculture is to get these things right. We spent 20 months in Committee debating the Bill and on Report in the House we spent 20 hours discussing it. We did this with the object of seeing that we got the Bill right. That being so, is it really too much to ask that, rather than start the Commission off with these compulsory powers, there should be this period of five years in which it can find its feet?
Surely we ought to leave the Bill in the state which agriculturists on both sides of the House like to see in all agricultural affairs, that is to say, sweet reason, good humour, harmony, compromise and commonsense, and I am sure that if the Minister were to seek the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion, the House would most graciously grant him that leave.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)We have been discussing an Amendment to certain powers provided by the Bill. I think we all agree that these are very wide powers which are to be given to the Commission, and I do not propose to dwell on what they are.
391 What would happen if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment? The answer is, I think, not the one which he gave in the course of his speech when he said that if he were to accept it the power to start the rationalisation and concentration of the industry would be delayed. It is not that which matters most. The acceptance of the Amendment would mean that until five years had elapsed no establishment, be it large or small, be it a multiple self-service store or a small hill farm, could be forced to close down under the head of eliminating excess capacity or reducing the number of undertakings involved. It could not be forced or compelled to close down. In simple language, no one could be put out of business by compulsory methods until five years had elapsed.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment, he could spare the kind of undertakings which I have mentioned and avoid great financial hardship and considerable personal distress. During these five years encouragement would be used, and only if encouragement proved to be of no avail—and in five years he would have the right to say that it was of no avail—would compulsion be used.
What I think was considerably depressing was that the right hon. Gentleman announced the rejection of the Amendment before hearing arguments which were entirely new, which had not been put in another place, which had not been put in Committee upstairs, and which were made with great eloquence, cogency, and considerable conviction by many of my hon. Friends. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this as a fundamental principle, that it is very much better to carry people with one in a new venture.
I regard the Government's approach to this as being bad psychologically. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we have never been told under what circumstances these powers might be used. The right hon. Gentleman heard a unanimous expression of opinion on this issue today. It reflects the view of the vast majority of people outside the House. I appreciate that it does not represent the views of everyone, because I know that there are people who are opposed to this. I do not 392 know what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) finds to laugh at.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)I am not laughing.
§ Mr. StodartIf the hon. Gentleman is not laughing, he has a queer way of expressing his feelings.
§ Mr. StodartI am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman at least admits that the vast majority of opinion is against granting these compulsory powers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take heed of the opinions which have been expressed tonight, and to withdraw from the position which he has taken up.
§ Mr. PeartWith permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) should criticise me for proposing this Motion. This is the procedure which enables us to discuss the Amendment. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can convince me by reason and argument that I am wrong, I can change my policy. This is a right which I have. This is our procedure. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rather naive, and I was rather surprised, because he is usually much better versed in Parliamentary procedure than he seemed to be tonight when dealing with the Amendment.
We have had a good debate, and I make no complaint about the criticisms which have been made. We have heard many of the arguments over and over again, and it would be wrong to deploy some of the wider arguments which have come up this evening.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) asked me to reply, and to be well mannered, kind, and reasonable. I hope that I am always that. I have been accused of being arrogant, of being intolerant, of being a dictator, and of being a Socialist. I am very proud of that last epithet. I hope that I am a good Socialist.
393 The hon. Gentleman said that I must consider this Amendment very carefully. It was, he said, after all a compromise, and it was not worth falling out because we were providing something for five years. I thought that this was a matter of principle for the Opposition. I detected this in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The hon. Gentleman as always, used extravagant language, and so did the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I am glad that the lion. Member for Edinburgh, West was a little more reasonable. There is hope for the Conservative Party if hon. Gentlemen opposite adopt this kind of attitude.
I have listened carefully to all the arguments, and I have tried to be reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman said that the powers were not necessary. We are not arguing about that. We have decided that these powers must be provided. It would be wrong to go into detail about them. I would love to go into detail about the powers which the Conservative Party once proposed for the reform of meat marketing. They were very drastic powers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—they certainly were. It is all on the record—
§ Mr. Speakerrose—
§ Mr. Peart—but it would be out of order to pursue that any further.
I reject the charge that I have been arrogant, that the Clause is obnoxious, and that we must therefore have these delaying powers. This argument was deployed in another place. Mr. Speaker is of course right in saying that we cannot quote from speeches made in another place, but the argument was deployed there. There was no real argument in principle against the powers to be given to the Commission. It was argued that we should delay giving the powers. The main argument was that the powers should not be given at this stage.
Tonight we have been told that the powers which are to be given to the Commission are dictatorial, extravagant, obnoxious and so on, but that is not what was said in the constructive speeches made by spokesmen of the Conservative Party in another place.
I assure hon. Members that it is unfair to say that I oppose these Amendments 394 merely because they come from another place. I have great respect for many of the arguments which are deployed in another place by men who are leaders in the industry and who have great knowledge of it. However, I carefully read the speeches made there both by those who supported my view and by my opponents. There was no argument in principle against what we are proposing and the Amendment is merely to impose a delay of five years.
I have said that there are safeguards and checks. I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should pour scorn on the Parliamentary check of the use of the affirmative Resolution. This procedure enables us to have tremendous debate, and I am surprised that that argument should be used.
§ Mr. MorePursuing the idea of a compromise, if and when an issue comes to an affirmative Resolution, could it be determined on a free vote of the House, without the Whips on?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot see what that has to do with it, especially when it comes from an hon. Member who acted as a Whip in Committee. That is a rather strange suggestion. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite will have a free vote this evening on this issue. However, again it would be out of order to pursue that.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) repeated all the arguments about support. I remind hon. Members that the National Farmers' Union supports this proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that I have addressed more farm meetings than many hon. Members opposite have, and I have explained this provision and not had one atom of criticism. Generally speaking producers support this.
§ Mr. Peter MillsWould not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if all the farmers who were members of the N.F.U. knew the full facts, they would not support this and that it is only the leaders who are in support?
§ Mr. PeartI could say that it is because the hon. Gentleman has not yet grasped the full facts that he has taken this attitude. It must be remembered that the annual meeting of the N.F.U. came to a decision on this issue. I hope that 395 the hon. Member will keep in touch with farming opinion.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that under Clause 2 the Commission would have to consult the interests concerned, which meant that in any case there was bound to be a delay of five years. It is true that under Clause 2 and Schedule 2 the Commission must go through a number of procedures before submitting a development scheme, but that would not take five years.
All we are saying is that the rapid changes which are taking place in the industry could lead to a situation which required a development scheme to be presented by the Commission, and that that draft scheme could go through all the safeguarding procedures within a period of five years. We believe that that possibility should be kept open and we are not being unreasonable in that.
8.15 p.m.
I do not wish to adopt a dictatorial attitude. As the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) rightly said, we have had long debates on this issue. It has not been rushed through the House, despite the long night sitting, which did not do the hon. Member any harm. There have been nearly two years of discussion and we have accepted some Amendments to the Bill.
If I do not reply to the individual speeches of hon. Members, I shall be told that I am arrogant. The hon. Member for Westmorland spoke of the attitude of a schoolboy at the end of term. He is speaking only for himself. I am perfectly serious and am not attempting to adopt a cavalier attitude. I have examined the Amendments carefully. I know that hon. Members opposite have their doubts, even though there are disagreements among them.
§ I cannot accept the Lords Amendment, for the reasons which I have given. The hon. Member for Torrington spoke about the compulsion of this provision and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also asked me to postpone this provision for five years. He suggested that this was an opportunity to do so. This theme was taken up by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who spoke of knowledge of the industry. I will merely say that the people who will be involved in the Commission will be men of experience in the industry. They will have consultations. They may want to do something within a period of five years. I want them to do the job. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely used a rather peculiar metaphor about barrows. I want the barrow to be moved forward, to be pushed so that it goes safely and sensibly, so that we can achieve great reforms in a very great and complex industry. That is what we all want.
§ We have had so many commissions and reports about this industry that it is not unreasonable to say that we should give the Commission power to act within five years. Five years is a long time, as hon. Members must appreciate from their own personal point of view. I can only tell the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that he cannot have read the Bill carefully. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendments of hon. Members opposite and also to reject the Lords' Amendment.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 145.
399| Division No. 307.] | AYES | [8.18 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Bishop, E. 8. | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Albu, Austen | Blackburn, F. | Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara |
| Alldritt, Walter | Boardman, H. | Chapman, Donald |
| Allen, Scholefield | Booth, Albert | Coleman, Donald |
| Anderson, Donald | Boston, Terence | Concannon, J. D. |
| Archer, Peter | Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Ashley, Jack | Brooks, Edwin | Crawshaw, Richard |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Cronln, John |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W) | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Barnett, Joel | Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Cullen, Mrs. Alice |
| Baxter, William | Buchan, Norman | Dalycll, Tam |
| Beaney, Alan | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) |
| Bence, Cyril | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Cant, R. B. | Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Carmichael, Neil | Davies, Ifor (Gower) |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Dell. Edmund | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Dempsey, James | Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Dewar, Donald | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Pentland, Norman |
| Dickens, James | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Dobson, Ray | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Doig, Peter | Lawson, George | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Ledger, Ron | Probert, Arthur |
| Eadio, Alex | Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) | Rankin, John |
| Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) | Lee, John (Reading) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Ellis, John | Lestor, Miss Joan | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) | Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Finch, Harold | Lomas, Kenneth | Rose, Paul |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Luard, Evan | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Rowland, Christopher (Merlden) |
| Floud, Bernard | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Rowlande, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | MoBride, Neil | Ryan, John |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | MacColl, James | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) |
| Ford, Ben | McGuire, Michael | Sheldon, Robert |
| Forrester, John | McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Shore, Peter (Stepney) |
| Gardner, Tony | Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergten) | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Garrett, W. E. | Mackie, John | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Ginsburg, David | Mackintosh, John P. | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwlch) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Maclennan, Robert | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Gregory, Arnold | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Slater, Joseph |
| Grey, Charles (Durham) | McNamara, J. Kevin | Small, William |
| Griffiths, David (Rather Valley) | MacPherson, Malcolm | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llaneffy) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Manuel, Archie | Symonds, J. B. |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mapp, Charles | Taverne, Dick |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Marquand, David | Thornton, Ernest |
| Hamling, William | Mason, Roy | Tinn, James |
| Hannan, William | Mayhew, Christopher | Tomney, Frank |
| Harper, Joseph | Mendelson, J. J, | Urwin, T. W. |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Variey, Eric G. |
| Haseldine, Norman | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Walker, Harold (Doncaater) |
| Hazell, Bert | Molloy, William | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Henig, Stanley | Moyle, Roland | Weitzman, David |
| Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Neal, Harold | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hooley, Frank | Newens, Stan | Whitaker, Ben |
| Horner, John | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp(Derby,S.) | Whitlock, William |
| Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Norwood, Christopher | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Oakes, Gordon | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Howie, W. | O'Malley, Brian | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Hoy, Jamet | Orme, Stanley | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Huckfleld, L. | Oswald, Thomas | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Padley, Walter | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Hunter, Adam | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | |
| Hynd, John | Palmer, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) | Park, Trevor | Mr. Charles R. Morris and |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Mr. Ernest Armstrong. |
| NOES | ||
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Cooke, Robert | Grieve, Percy |
| Alitor, John | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmund*) |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Corfield, P. V. | Grlmond, Rt. Hn, J. |
| Bataford, Brian | Costaln, A. P. | Gurdan, Harold |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hall-Davis, A. Q. P. |
| Bell, Ronald | Crawley, Aldan | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Bennett, 8lr Frederic (Torquay) | Crouch, David | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Bessell, Peter | Cunningham, Sir Knox | Harris, Reader (Haston) |
| Biffen, John | Dalkeith, Earl of | Harrison, Brian (Matdon) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Davldson,Jamee(Aberdeenshire, W.) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Aehford) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vers |
| Body, Richard | Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Harvie Anderson, Miss |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Eden, Sir John | Hawkins, Paul |
| Braine, Bernard | Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel |
| Brewis, John | Eyre, Reginald | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Fortescue, Tim | Hill, J. E. B. |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Foster, Sir John | Holland, Philip |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) | Gibson-Watt, David | Hornby, Richard |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Hunt, John |
| Burden, F. A. | Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Campbell, Gordon | Glover, Sir Douglas | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Carlisls, Mark | Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Gower, Raymond | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Ciegg, Walter | Grant, Anthony | Jopling, Michael |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Nichoils, Sir Harmar | Temple, John M. |
| King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Kitson, Timothy | Onslow, Cranley | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Knight, Mrs. Jill | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Wall, Patrick |
| Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Walters, Dennis |
| Loveys, W. H. | Peel, John | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Lubbock, Eric | Percival, Ian | Weatherill, Bernard |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Pink, R. Bonner | Webster, David |
| MacArthur, Ian | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Pym, Francis | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| McMaster, Stanley | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Maddan, Martin | Robson Brown, Sir William | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Marten, Nell | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Maude, Angus | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Mawby, Ray | Stainton, Keith | Worsley, Marcus |
| Maxwelt-Hysfop, R. 1. | Steel, David (Roxburgh) | Wright, Esmond |
| Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Stodart, Anthony | Wylie, N. R. |
| Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) | |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Summers, Sir Spencer | TELLERS FOR THE NOES. |
| Monro, Hector | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Mr. Jasper More and |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) | Mr. David Mitchell |
| Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |