HC Deb 25 April 1967 vol 745 cc1367-82

Where any River Purification Authority is likely to be affected by the exercise of any of their functions under this Act, Regional Water Boards and Water Development Boards shall consult any such Authority, and in the exercise of their functions under the Act they shall have regard to any representations made to them by any such authority.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

We discussed the principle of the new Clause in an Amendment to Clause 6, in Committee. The Minister of State is underestimating its importance. On reflection, I do not think that the Minister went as far as we thought he was going in the subsequent Amendment which he put down.

The Clause relates to the duty of river purification authorities to husband the resources of their area under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. It is, therefore, vital that these authorities should know as early as possible what abstraction or impounding of water is going on in their districts. Their calculations of effluent depend on the water available. All industries which pollute rivers are vitally concerned—for example, sewerage works, farms and any concern which discharges into a river.

The tiniest reduction in flow because the water board has impounded or abstracted will make nonsense of calculations and it is, therefore, vital that the purification authorities should be consulted as early as possible. Of course, it will save a regional water board time in surveying and planning if it knows the view of the purification authority as early as possible. The authority may say that the board may not have water from a certain river because it will increase the strength of effluent and make nonsense of the authority's previous calculations.

I need to go into no further detail on this principle, as it has been argued in Committee. Statutory consultation is vital and there is no question of asking for representation on the water board. In reply to the debate in Committee, the Minister offered, and moved, an Amendment to Schedule 5, but I do not think, on reflection, that it went far enough, as it insisted only on the regional water board giving notice of its intention to proceed with works. This means after a decision has been made, and would, therefore, be too late. Time will have been wasted by the board and complications may be caused with the purification authorities.

The Minister accepted that it was right to consult, but said that Clause 6 was too early. But it is never too early to begin consultation on an important issue like this. It would save the time of the engineers because, if the water resource is not in the end available because of the objection of the purification authority, all the time which the board has spent will have been wasted. Also, with the information which the purification authorities already have, there is the possibility of duplication of effort.

5.15 p.m.

The Minister went on to say that a board is bound to consult the purification authority if it is prudent. I agree, but if it is so essential, why not put it into the Bill now? The Minister promised again, in column 216, to look at this and, because of his sympathy with our argument, we withdrew the Amendment at that time. The Minister amended Schedule 5, which altered the 1946 Act and which not only included the extra definition of river authority but required the water board to consult the river purification authority. But this is too late. Consultations are necessary sooner.

Not only do I and my colleagues think that this is important; so do the purification authorities concerned. I have had representations from the Solway and the Tweed River Purification Authorities, both of which are held in the highest esteem in water circles. I have read the letters from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Solway Authority, in which the point about early consultation seems to have been missed. It is before a decision should be made that consultations are desirable. Both the authorities I have mentioned feel strongly about this and I have no reason to think that the Clyde River Purification Authority feels otherwise.

The new Clause is simple and concise and does what is wanted. It may save time and duplication of effort. We know that water engineers will be in extremely short supply and the less unnecessary work they have to do the better. I hope the Minister of State will accept the Clause, because it is logical and is what everyone in Scotland wants.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I do not believe in repeating arguments which have already been put adequately. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has put the case very well for the new Clause. However, since the Committee proceedings, I have had discussions with the Chief Officer of the Tweed River Purification Authority, at its headquarters. I was interested to see the valuable work which the authority does, which goes far beyond the general narrow idea of purification. They have a great deal of experience and basic information about the water resources of a region at their command. After that meeting, I have had representations from the Clerk to the Tweed Authority.

I would urge the Minister of State to accept the new Clause. It is not good enough to leave it open to the new authorities to consult the river purification authorities if they see fit. In this and so many other matters consultation and its effectiveness will depend on the personal relations which exist between the purification authorities' officers and those of the water boards. At present, in the River Tweed area these relationships are extremely good. It might, therefore, be argued that no statutory provision is required. However, in other parts of Scotland the position is not so good and we do not know what the position will be when these boards come into force. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that in any changes that are envisaged for the development of water resources, the purification authorities, which have the expertise, should be consulted at the earliest possible point.

This is a minor point, but one of important principle but I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

I support this eminently reasonable Clause and hope that it will be accepted. Hon. Members should remember that when discussing a Bill of this nature we should not lose sight of its basic purpose, which is to look after one of our basic natural resources. In other words, this is largely a question of water conservation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to the 1951 Act. Section 17(1) of that Measure describes fully the functions of river purification authorities and shows that these functions extend beyond the question of pollution, for it states: It shall be the duty of the authorities specified in the next following subsection … to promote the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their areas and to exercise for those purposes the functions conferred on them by this Act. This demonstrates the tremendously wide responsibilities that are already shouldered by river purification authorities. I hope, therefore, that it will be obligatory for the new boards to consult with these authorities at the earliest possible stage.

I do not intend to repeat in detail the arguments that have already been adduced. Anybody who has had experience, as I have, of the working of river purification authorities appreciates the tremendous local knowledge that these authorities possess. This knowledge has been built up since these bodies were established. They have officers working in particular localities who know about the water resources of their areas. They carry out work in river gauging, the measurement of rainfall, and so on, and, therefore, have a tremendous amount of information at their fingertips. This information will be of great importance when the new boards consider new methods of guaranteeing the supply of water.

This extends more widely to the question of the abstraction of water high up in a river and the way in which this affects the quality of the water lower down. If the existing authorities are not consulted—remembering that one cannot be certain that they will be under the Bill as drafted—there will be the risk that the work that has been done by these authorities will be nullified by the work of the new bodies. This would be a great shame, remembering that at the end of the day we are all working toward the same aim.

I said that I would not repeat the arguments that have been adduced, but I must give one example to show what happens. About 50 per cent. of the river water in the Lothians area comes from underground sources. When considering the resources of water in the area one must, therefore, consider the water before it actually reaches the river.

The authority at present operating in the area is responsible for the cleanliness of the water and, in carrying out this responsibility, depends on getting its water not from a reservoir but from underground sources. I give this example to demonstrate that the responsibilities of river authorities extend beyond the rivers themselves.

It is vital that these consultations should take place at the earliest possible stage. I am sure that in many cases this will happen, even without the Clause, but we would be leaving it to chance. There will be cases when it will not happen and when all the good work that has been done will be lost. That is why I urge the Minister to accept the Clause, because, by doing so, he will ensure that what we all want to happen is not left to chance.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Oliver Twist has always been a favourite character of mine. He had a good case and a fair request. When considering what happened in Committee, I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not now asking for a loaf—when in Committee we gave half a loaf—but are asking for one and a half loaves. In any case, there seems to be some confusion about exactly what happened in Committee and what is being asked for now.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) made a good case. On that occasion I could not go the whole way and accept his case in its entirety. I appreciate that what he said came from the Solway River Purification Authority and I admit at once that I have a natural affection for these authorities. It was my privilege to be the Minister who took the 1965 Act through its Committee stage. I recall with some pleasure the important work done by my predecessor who represented Greenock and what he did when Secretary of State during the passage of the initial Act. I accept all that and I assure hon. Members that I have taken a keen interest in the work of these authorities. Only last night I was with the Chairman of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee.

It is not true to say that there is a general outcry from river purification authorities and that they are demanding much more than we have done in the Bill. The Lower Clyde has been mentioned, but the Lower Clyde Board has never written asking us to enact the provision contained in the Clause, no doubt because this and other authorities understand the change we made in Committee and what it means.

I do not dissent from the proposition that a regional water board which fails to consult is not doing its duty properly. That failure will be exposed whenever the time comes to go through the statutory obligations which are consequent on the Amendment which we have made to Schedule 1 of the 1946 Act. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries referred to water being "suddenly abstracted" from a river by a regional water board. I responded by saying that water could not be suddenly abstracted in that way because a regional water board would require an Order under Section 21 of the 1964 Act. We made an Amendment in Committee to ensure that any interested river purification authority would be consulted and that the Secretary of State would, if the objection had not been withdrawn, cause an inquiry to be held. At that stage it would be obvious to the Secretary of State that the board, if it had not consulted the purification authority, had not properly carried out its duty.

It should be remembered that the board may have consulted the purification authority but that that authority had not got its way. Consultation does not mean that one must do what the persons concerned are seeking to consult one about. That would be unfair and ridiculous. After all, the regional board may say, "We have consulted them and have new issued them with a statutory notice, and that is why they are objecting". We will make it clear when the Bill is passed, when we send out a circular to all authorities, exactly what the position is about consultation and the position, will be made clear not merely to river purification authorities but, as I said in Committee, to all other bodies.

Obviously, the purification authorities are the outstanding bodies to be consulted and would probably be the first to he consulted when a regional board had a proposal. However, the other bodies to which I was referring on that occasion cannot be dismissed. Although perhaps not as important as river purification authorities, they must be considered. I can think of the Nature Conservancy. A good case might be made out why that body should be added to the new Clause. There are the district fishery boards, and a good case could no doubt be made out why they should be included. There are various angling associations. Should not they be included?

We made concessions in Committee and, considering the variety of interested authorities, I suggest that, when exercising their functions, the regional boards will consult these bodies, including the purification authorities. To accept the Clause would mean that a regional board would in all circumstances have to … consult any such Authority"— meaning, in the Clause, any river purification authority— …in the exercise of their functions under the Act… I am arguing that there is a case in equity for including not just river purification authorities but, say, the Nature Conservancy, the district fishery boards and even the electricity boards.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made out a good case in Committee for considering the electricity boards in this context. I said in reply to his argument on that occasion that the new water boards would be failing in their duty if they did not consult, not from a statutory point of view but as good business men. If they did not have early discussions with, say, the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman outlined, they would not be acting as good business men.

I was not prepared at that time to write in a statutory requirement, because "at the earliest stage" could mean the point when the matter came on the agenda at one of the board's meetings. Perhaps there could be an even earlier stage. It might be argued that there should be consultation even before the matter had appeared on the agenda.

There are statutory authorities other than electricity boards. In addition to angling associations, there are navigation authorities. In the Clyde, for example, there is not just a Clyde River Authority, but a Clyde Port Authority, which is an equally important organisation. There are certain reservations in the Bill about their statutory rights. It might even be argued that the Landowners' Federation should be the first to he consulted. What about the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland? There are all sorts of amenity societies.

I am saying that it is quite unfair to incorporate a Clause of this kind when it is so wide and when it specifies one particular agency, considering all the other agencies with interests in these matters.

Mr. David Steel

The Minister is making very heavy weather here. He is not suggesting, is he, that the extent of the river purification boards' information and direct involvement in water resources matters is in any way analogous to that of the Association for Preservation of Rural Scotland and the angling societies? The interest is quite different.

Dr. Mabon

I agree, but I do not know whether those authorities and private bodies would agree. We all have to respect the rights of minorities. Anglers most certainly have rights in the matter which we cannot dismiss, but there is no statutory authority in regard to them. With respect, it is not I who is making heavy weather. I think that the very heavy weather is made by two river purification authorities, which never really thought that the argument would be carried as far—or, at least, one of them did, but the other did not. My right hon. Friend is not bombarded with letters saying, "There will be a terrible mess if we do not put in this provision."

I conceded the hon. Member a point in the Committee. I could not give him the whole case, but I gave him part of it. Ministers must consult. Our impression was that if we amended Schedule 5, as I think it was, so as to alter the position in the 1946 Act we would be providing a statutory right for river purification authorities to get this information, and to be consulted. Not one word has been said in support of river purification authorities with which I disagree. I believe that the case that has been put up is quite right and proper. They should be consulted as soon as possible, and perhaps some of the other associations that have been referred to could be considered as well in the appropriate context. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) would, I am sure, agree with what I said about electricity boards.

We cannot seek to incorporate a reference to one body, leave out the rest, and imagine that the rights of the rest are by inference unaffected. It might be argued that because Parliament deliberately left out those references there was no obligation, even on the score of good business, for the boards so to refer. I do not lay great stress on that, but if we are to have a new Clause referring to the rights of one public body, why should it not refer to other public bodies? Why should it not refer to individual private bodies?

I give the House the assurance that when the Bill is on the Statute Book the Secretary of State will ensure that a circular is sent to all the kinds of bodies I have mentioned including, naturally, the river purification authorities, and that we will make sure that the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee is aware of this, and is aware, also, of the opportunity to remind the Secretary of State, not that the regional boards are in breach of Statute—because they would not be—but are in breach of good practice, and to give him illustrations of the kind of thing that might happen in the Solway, the Tweed, or elsewhere.

I think that I have made a fair offer. It is not quite the full loaf that the hon. Member for Dumfries sought in Committee. He has already got half of it— can he not settle for three-quarters rather than seek a loaf and a half?

Mr. MacArthur

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will not settle for this offer of an alleged half-loaf. I call the Minister's attention to the wording of Clause 6. The hon. Gentleman earlier suggested that by its wording this new Clause might require consultation at the earliest of stages. He certainly used the words that consultation would be required "at the earliest of stages". But there is no requirement in the Bill as it stands for any consultation at any time—neither at the earliest nor at the latest of stages.

All that Clause 6 lays down is that in matters of common interest regional water boards and water development boards shall consult together and collaborate. We have had a lot of debate about the word "collaborate" and I shall not go over it again. But the present wording of the Clause relates simply to regional water boards and water development boards. There is no mention of bodies outside. The Minister must agree, and it is clear from what he has said that he does agree, that river purification authorities have a particularly important place in water supply and development matters. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made the point just now that they are in a special position in such matters.

The Minister may well consider, and I would not dispute it, that there are other bodies which should, on occasion, also be consulted because they have concern for water, amenities, and the like. In that case, let the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking now that in the Bill's next stage in another place he will introduce an Amendment to cover the point made by my hon. Friend and the general point he himself is advancing. It is not sufficient for him to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide—

Mr. Willis

Which Clause?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur

Clause 6. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the Bill.

As I was saying, it is not sufficient for the Minister to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide for that wider consultation that we believe is necessary—

Mr. Willis

I asked which Clause the hon. Gentleman was referring to, because we now happen to be discussing new Clause No. 5.

Mr. MacArthur

If the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to the debate he will know that Clause 6 is the Clause to which we are primarily referring. There is no provision in Clause 6 for previous consultation with river purification authorities but only for consultation between regional water boards and water development boards. If the hon. Gentleman studies Clause 6, I hope that he will now accept that there is need for an extension of the consultation requirement.

My hon. Friend has advanced the argument most clearly. The Minister makes obeisance to what my hon. Friend says, and tells him, "Do not worry—we can send out a circular to cover the point". I do not think that Ministerial circulars are sufficient. Such matters should be precise. The Bill would be substantially improved if it were more precise in some respects, and this is one respect in which precision should be introduced into the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the new Clause as it stands, I hope that he will at least give an undertaking to meet this point and the wider point he himself advanced at a later stage in another place.

Mr. Manuel

I hope my hon. Friend will not be moved from his present position. It is bad for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and his hon. Friends to take up the hard position they have adopted. In my opinion it would cause a certain resentment to write into the Bill a provision with respect to river purification authorities but to omit from reference authorities doing valuable work on water provision and water cleanliness. I would be very opposed to such a provision being inserted, although I recognise its supreme importance.

During my adult life I have allied myself with the work done by purification authorities, but I realise equally the immense stature and capability of, and the trust reposed in, for instance, the Hydro-Electric Board. I realise the intense interest that the Board has in connection with the extraction of water in many of the areas it administers. I quite understand the hon. Member for Dum- fries seeking to put forward the representations he has had from his area, but he must recognise that in legislation of this kind we are looking at Scotland as a whole, and not at a particular area, so that it will apply equitably throughout Scotland.

It will be admitted that not all river purification boards are as strong as they are in Ayrshire and Dumfries-shire. Some are no more than an adjunct of the county council. There will, therefore, be some resentment if these provisions are made as hard and as fast as the hon. Member for Dumfries suggests. Hon. Members would be well advised to think of Scotland as a whole and of the importance of all the authorities which may be interested, and not to pinpoint one which they may consider to be the most important and which may be the most important.

We have to recognise that the Hydro-Electric Board and other authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider their range of duties to be equally important. By adopting the hon. Member's suggestion, we would at any rate tend to set them against what we are trying to do. On the other hand, my hon. Friend's proposition puts the onus on the regional water board to notify all concerned.

Mr. Monro

After the decision.

Mr. Manuel

Not after the decision. My hon. Friend explained this very carefully and I accept his honesty of purpose and integrity, as would hon Members opposite if they had known him as long as I have.

Mr. Monro

If the Minister of State thinks that he has given me half a loaf, I am glad that I do not come frequently to his table for crumbs. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and the Minister are making extraordinary heavy weather of what ought to be a very simple situation. What my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has given us his very knowledgeable views on the Tweed Board are arguing is that before water boards reach any decision they should get in touch with river purification boards. That does not seem to be too much to ask, particularly when hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the great warmth of feeling and cooperation in this respect. We are not asking much, but this is vitally important.

The Minister of State said that I had no right to include the views of the Clyde River Purification Board. If he had read "The Water Service in Scotland", he would have seen that in its evidence, reported on page 74, the Clyde River Purification Board said: The Board welcome the linking of public supply undertakings into larger units and suggest that a procedure should be laid down to secure that the Board are fully consulted at an early stage about all new abstractions. That is exactly what I am arguing.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman is asking for consultation at all stages to be a statutory requirement. There is a big difference between a statutory requirment and a procedure. A procedure can be consequential upon a statutory requirement, or upon certain administrative understandings in which the Secretary of State is the principal officer concerned.

Mr. Monro

We are considering what will be a new Act and we want to be

absolutely clear and seen to be clear. It is quite wrong to legislate by circular. I would have thought that such a suggestion was not worthy of the Minister. It should be firmly laid down in the Bill that a regional water board should notify the river purification board at the earliest moment.

The Minister overplayed his hand when he started talking about fishing rights and the Nature Conservancy. While all those are important, in a way they are covered by the blanket work of a river purification board. Their purpose is to see that the river is kept in the cleanest possible state for fish and other wild life. That is one of the aims of the purification authorities—to provide fresh clear water in our rivers for the benefit of fish and bird life—and they will, naturally, take a very close interest in those branches of field sports and pursuits.

The Minister has failed to meet me in any way since the Committee stage and I therefore have no hesitation in dividing the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 199.

Division No. 317.] AYES [5.55 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Astor, John Errington, Eir Eric Kimball, Marcus
Awdry, Daniel Eyre, Reginald King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Baker, W. H. K. Foster, Sir John Kitson, Timothy
Balniel, Lord Gibson-Watt, David Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bell, Ronald Goodhart, Philip Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Goodhew, Victor Loveys, W. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Gower, Raymond Lubbock, Eric
Blaker, Peter Grant-Ferris, R. McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bossom, Sir Clive Gresham Cooke, R. MacArthur, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Braine, Bernard Gurden, Harold Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hall, John (Wycombe) Maginnis, John E.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Maude, Angus
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mawby, Ray
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Harris, Reader (Heston) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bullus, Sir Eric Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Burden, F. A. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Campbell, Gordon Hawkins, Paul Miscampbell, Norman
Carlisle, Mark Higgins, Terence L. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hiley, Joseph More, Jasper
Clegg, Walter Hill, J. E. B. Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hirst, Geoffrey Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Corfield, F. V. Holland, Philip Murton, Oscar
Costain, A. P. Hooson, Emlyn Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hordern, Peter Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Cunningham, Sir Knox Hunt, John Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Iremonger, T. L. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, Charles Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Drayson, G. B. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Percival, Ian
Eden, Sir John Jopling, Michael Pike, Miss Mervyn
Prior, J. M. L. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pym, Francis Tapsell, Peter Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Temple, John M. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Worsley, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John Younger, Hn. George
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Smith, John Walters, Dennis TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Steel, David (Roxburgh) Ward, Dame Irene Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro.
Stodart, Anthony Webster, David
Abse, Leo Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Norwood, Christopher
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Oakes, Gordon
Alldritt, Walter Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony O'Malley, Brian
Allen, Scholefield Gregory, Arnold Orme, Stanley
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oswald, Thomas
Armstrong, Ernest Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ashley, Jack Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Palmer, Arthur
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Park, Trevor
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hannan, William Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Barnett, Joel Harper, Joseph Pavitt, Laurence
Beaney, Alan Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bence, Cyril Hart, Mrs. Judith Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Haseldine, Norman Pentland, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney Hilton, W. S. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Binns, John Hooley, Frank Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Blackburn, F. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Price, William (Rugby)
Booth, Albert Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Rankin, John
Boston, Terence Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reynolds, G. W.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hynd, John Rhodes, Geoffrey
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Irvine, T. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bray, Dr, Jeremy Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Brooks, Edwin Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rose, Paul
Buchanan Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Ross. Rt. Hn. William
Butler, Mis. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rowland. Christopher (Meriden)
Cant, R. B. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rowlands. E. (Cardiff, N.)
Carmichael, Neil Kenyon, Clifford Sheldon, Robert
Carter-Jones, Lewis Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Coe, Denis Kerr Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Coleman, Donald Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Concannon, J. D. Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Conlan, Bernard Lestor, Miss Joan Slater, Joseph
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Small, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Spriggs, Leslie
Cronin, John Lomas, Kenneth Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard Loughlin, Charles Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Luard, Evan Symonds, J. B.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thornton, Ernest
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacColl, James Tomney, Frank
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) MacDermot, Niall Urwin, T. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGuire, Michael Varley, Eric G.
Dewar, Donald McKay, Mrs. Margaret Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dickens, James Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Wallace, George
Doig, Peter Mackintosh, John P. Watkins, David (Consett)
Driberg, Tom MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) MacPherson, Malcolm Wellbeloved, James
Eadie, Alex Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.) Whitaker, Ben
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Whitlock, William
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Manuel, Archie Wilkins, W. A.
Ensor, David Mapp, Charles Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Faulds, Andrew Marquand, David Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Finch, Harold Mason, Roy Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Mendelson, J. J. Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mikardo, Ian Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Millan, Bruce Winnick, David
Floud, Bernard Miller, Dr. M. S. Winterbottom, R. E.
Foley, Maurice Milne, Edward (Blyth) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Ford, Bert Molloy, William Woof, Robert
Forrester, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Fowler, Gerry Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galpern, Sir Myer Moyle, Roland Mr. Harold Walker and
Garrett, W. E. Murray, Albert Mr. Grey.
Ginsburg, David Neal, Harold