|As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.|
§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)
I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 21, line 29, to leave out 'Aberchirder Town Council'.
§ Mr. Speaker
I suggest to the House that, with Amendment No. 41, we take Amendments No. 42, in line 32, leave out 'Abelour Town Council'; No. 43, leave out lines 35 to 41; No. 44, leave out lines 43 and 44; No. 45, in line 46, leave out 'Grantown-on-Spey Town Council'; No. 47, in line 49, leave out 'Keith Town Council'; No. 49, in page 22, leave out lines 11 to 17; No. 51, leave out lines 20 and 21; No. 52, in line 23, leave out 'Rothes Town Council'; and No. 55, in page 23, line 33, at end insert:
§ 14. The Banff, Moray and Nairn Water Board limits of supply of:
- Aberchirder Town Council
- Aberlour Town Council
- Banff County Council
- Banff Town Council
- Buckie Town Council
- Buckie and Portknockie Joint Water Committee
- Cullen Town Council
- Dufftown Town Council
- Findochty Town Council
- Forres Town Council
- Grantown-on-Spey Town Council
- Keith Town Council
- Laich of Moray Water Board
- Lower Deveron Water Board
- Macduff Town Council
- Moray County Council
- Nairn County Council
- Nairn Joint Water Board
- Nairn Town Council
- Portknockie Town Council
- Portsoy Town Council
- Rothes Town Council.
§ Mr. Baker
May I say, at the outset, how grateful my hon. Friends and I are to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling these Amendments, in view of the fact that they are the same as those tabled during the Committee stage.
It is a significant fact that this is the third of a series of Amendments, all of which are tabled by hon. Members representing constituencies in the North and North-East of Scotland. The Minister of State said frequently during the Committee stage. and indeed at other meetings, that he envisaged 13 regional water boards for Scotland. I think it only fair to say that over the months of long discussion, correspondence, and several meetings, there was a good deal of amity expressed, not only by the Minister of State, but by officials of the Scottish 1470 Office. It seems to me that at this stage the Government have finally closed their minds to any Amendment to Schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, this is almost the end of the road, and unless the Government are prepared to think again at this stage there is very little hope for the Amendment.
I would like to refer to what has gone before. First, we had the moves by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to get joint consultations and voluntary amalgamations. These, admittedly, failed. Next, we had the Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, and as a result of that and the consultations which took place there was a voluntary coming together of the local water authorities in the three counties of Banff, Moray and Nairn.
The Committee stage of the Bill was interspersed with various meetings between Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman, and officials, and these culminated in a meeting on 24th February in Edinburgh when the Minister of State met representatives from Banff, Moray and Nairn, Aberdeenshire and North Angus. At that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, and indeed throughout the Committee stage, I gained the impression that the Government's mind was not closed to amalgamation. As a result of all these consultations, the 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn came together and voluntarily agreed to amalgamate among themselves. This in itself was a complete change of mind, and the hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, acknowledged this, and even after the meeting on 24th February said that he was willing to listen.
The final stage, other than this Report stage, was a meeting held in Aberdeen on 29th March and presided over by one of the officials of the Scottish Development Department. Before that meeting I made the suggestion that two working parties should be set up, one to look after the interests of Aberdeen and North Kincardine, and the other to look after the interests of Banff, Moray and Nairn, and I thought that that point had been taken, but when it came to discussions during the meeting, and indeed in the findings of the meeting, we found that one working party was to be set up. To my mind, 1471 this meant that the advice given by the Scottish Development Department and the Minister of State was that there could be no going back on Schedule 1.
After saying that the choice for the North-East of Scotland lay between two regions, Banff, Moray and Nairn, and Aberdeen and part of North Kincardine, or integration of the whole area into one board, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, in its final Report, went on to say, in paragraph 93, thatthese three Counties"—that is, Banff, Moray and Nairn—with a population of about 105,000, compact in configuration, and independent of outside sources for their supplies, would constitute a suitable regional water area.It rejects this and says that Aberdeenshire could contribute supplies to this area—that is, Moray and Nairn—if the need arose. It goes on to say:We gather from the evidence that this view is based on the proposals of the County Council of Aberdeen for the use of the supplies proposed to be drawn from the Cabrach scheme.The hon. Member knows that the Cabrach scheme has dropped out. Therefore, the main reason for this larger area, as advanced by the Advisory Committee, has also fallen.
Time and time again the Minister of State has said that Aberdeenshire is short of water. Nobody quarrels with that—least of all Banffshire and Moray and Nairn. The Minister knows as well as I do that the problem of the supply of extra water needed for Aberdeenshire has been virtually solved by amicable agreement between the Banff County Council and the River Deveron Fishery Board. The result is that Aberdeenshire is now to get 5 million gallons of water a day from the River Deveron at Turriff. Although part of the case for retaining Schedule 1 and the case based on the Cabrach scheme have fallen, the Government remain obdurate.
The underlying fact is that all 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn are agreed on amalgamation and, as the Minister of State knows, a draft water order is in preparation and already exists in skeleton form. Surely this shows the earnest of the intent of these 17 local water authorities. It is far better to take 1472 a willing bride to the altar than to perpetrate a shot-gun marriage—which is what the Government will do if they stick to Schedule 1 in its present form.
I remind the House and the Minister that the decision to amalgamate was taken by freely-elected representatives of the people in the area. If the Government insist on retaining Schedule 1 in its present form they will be going against local opinion and, to use an angling simile, they will be swallowing the bait, hook, line and sinker. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is not here at the moment, will agree that the sinker part of the simile could well be left out in the case of Scotland. The Government have made up their minds and they will not budge.
I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had in Committee and at the various meetings to which I have referred, but the Minister will remember that in Committee the Opposition moved Amendments which would have made it possible for public inquiries to be held where amalgamations were opposed. The Government misguidedly rejected those Amendments, and are now forcing their view on North-East Scotland in the teeth of local public opposition and against all the best advice that my hon. Friends and I have given them.
This amounts to bull-dozing legislation through the House, and is not in the best interests of the people concerned. Is it any wonder that the Government are faced with a revulsion of feeling throughout the country when they insist on this kind of legislative procedure?
§ Mr. Dewar
I listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), although his arguments were familiar, which is not surprising as we have been subjected to an enthusiastic course of propaganda enthusiastically sustained throughout the debate on principle and at the meeting on 29th March in Aberdeen. I know the sincerity with which he and his local authority maintain their point of view, but I am left with the impression that it is mistaken, for all that.
Some arguments have been used in this and in past debates many times. First, it has been suggested with heat that there is a special natural boundary running throughout the proposed North-East Region which would take Banff, Moray 1473 and Nairn out of the region. The hon. Member said that although it was difficult to see it on the map, it could be seen on the ground, running from Tomintoul down through Cabrach to the coast. He likened it to the spur of the Grampians which was the excuse for halving Kincardine, but, unfortunately, his colleagues have been arguing that this similar spur was no barrier at all in Kincardine and ought to be ignored. The same argument could have been applied to this situation.
I think that the hon. Member would agree that, if this is to be the boundary of the new region, its only effect will be to half Banff County. This would not be popular or Acceptable to his local authority—
§ Mr. Dewar
I cannot accept that. We should have to have a map to prove it, as I do not suppose that many hon. Members know the minutae of the geography of Banff. I have checked this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and my impression is that the hon. Member's proposal would divide the county as I have described, although perhaps not down the middle—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With respect, I think that the present proposal is to include or to cut out Banff entirely. We cannot talk about dividing it on this Amendment.
§ Mr. Dewar
I am delighted to forgo the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, but what you say underlines the irrelevancy of one of the main arguments for this proposition, one on which the case was heavily based.
The proposers of the Amendment have gained a great deal of comfort from the Advisory Committee's Final Report, and indeed it says that for the 105,000 people in the proposed new region who would be excluded from the present Schedule 1 arrangement would make this an unworkable unit. I would accept it as a possible and reasonable unit.
The Report went on to put tremendous emphasis—unfortunately, in view of 1474 recent events—on the Cabrach scheme. This was to be the example of the possible interdependence between Banff and Moray and Nairn and the rest of the North East region. It is now dead, and with its demise has gone it is alleged any possible link between the two areas. But that scheme has been replaced with the scheme at Deveron taking water at Turriff and the Banff scheme, taking water from the lower reaches.
This should give some basis for common interest and provide some link, which is the justification for the total region. After all, the Deveron boundary zig-zags eratically along the county boundary between Banff and the rest of the proposed region. It would be unfortunate if, because we have amicably reached a conclusion which is satisfactory to both sides at the moment—given the present requirements and output of the schemes—there was at no time overall planning and consultation. There will have to be such processes and it would surely be better and more efficient if they took place in the framework of the proposed region.
Two arguments bulked largely at the meeting in Aberdeen and lie behind the Amendment. The first was put with brutal frankness in Committee by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who said that there was a real danger that Banff and Moray and Nairn would be swamped by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That would be a tragedy but it is an argument against any regionalisation or co-operation.
If the hon. Member believes that we cannot trust representatives from Aberdeen or the county to look dispassionately at the region's problems and to consider important arguments on behalf of Banff, Moray and Nairn, he is closing the door to any co-operation, whether in fire or police services or any other field to which the Government might turn their attention.
The second argument put energetically by the hon. Member for Banff and his local authority colleagues was that they had a lower water rate—and indeed, the lowest in his area is 1s. 8d. in 1966–67. The Aberdeenshire water rate, they said, had tended to increase and now stood at 2s. 8d., so that there would be an increase in their water rates which would 1475 be aggravated because they would have to bear a considerable burden from possible future complicated engineering schemes in the county.
I appreciate that, but it is not an argument to which the Minister of State can afford to listen. It is a thrawn situation when local prejudice is reinforced by special financial interests and I hope that my hon. Friend will stand firm. If it is said that it will be a bad bargain for Banff and Moray and Nairn, then that argument applies to Aberdeen City, part of which I represent. When hon. Members say that 1s. 8d. is the rate in Moray and Nairn, they should not forget that the water rate in Aberdeen is down to 7d. or something in that region.
If we are asked to go in, because of advantages in regionalisation, with our low water rate and accept—as Aberdeen City would have to do—considerable financial disadvantages, it is unreasonable to expect us to be sympathetic to pleas for exemption because of added financial burden under the new arrangements. We in Aberdeen City accept that there will be very great efficiencies and big economies to be made, as well as advantages in connection with overall planning, but that, to get these advantages, we must be prepared to accept considerable burdens being placed on the city's finances. However, we also accept that others should be prepared to make similar sacrifices.
If the Minister of State gives way tonight, and allows Moray and Nairn and Banff to leave the proposed North-East Region, I offer the warning that Aberdeen City will almost certainly reconsider its position and will almost certainly apply for permission to leave the proposed region. If that happened we would be left not with what is proposed in the Amendment, a truncated North-East Region, but no North-East Region at all. I regret to have to make this sound rather like blackmail and to put the Minister of State in an uncomfortable position, but we must be realistic about the matter.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Even by way of threat, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper.
§ Mr. Dewar
I am sorry for getting out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it important to draw the attention of the House to one almost certain consequence of the Government accepting the Amendment.
I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff. I also listened to the representations made by his local authorities. I accept implicity their sincerity and the fact that they honestly and sincerely want to be excluded and to go their own way. This must be an important fact to which the Minister of State will have to give his attention. Ultimately, however, it cannot be the only factor. It is because we have paid lip service to the principle that is involved and that, over the years, we have been making such cheeseparing progress. Now, if my hon. Friend gives way to only local interests, we will end up with no regionalisation in any part of Scotland.
It was put strongly that a St. Andrew's House point of view was being foisted on the local authorities in Moray and Nairn and Banff. I do not believe that that is true. There is another point of view, and that is represented by the concept of the North-East Region. We must have overall planning and some kind of machinery which will use the potentialities and resources of the region. I know that the North-East Consultative Group regards water as a vital raw material for industrial expansion. Indeed, the chairman of the group has on several occasions stressed the terrible mistake that would be made if Moray and Nairn and Banff were excluded from the proposed region. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the House will also take the view that such a move would indeed be a mistake.
§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) for all that he has done in trying to get agreement on what I know is a difficult problem in the area of Moray and Nairn and Banff. A remarkable fact is that we had this discussion earlier and that it has resulted in a proposal which I have in a letter before me—the voluntary union of the 17 authorities in the Moray and Nairn and Banff areas. This is an example of the concentration of mind that has existed and the willingness on the part of those concerned to combine. As Mr. Armstrong, 1477 the County Clerk of Banff said to me in a letter, "This proves their anxiety to form into one regional board".
I am indebted to those who attended the meeting at which the problems of Aberdeen County were discussed. I have in mind the immediate problems to which the hon. Member for Banff referred. I am also grateful that we were able to get agreement, at that meeting, with Banff County and that the way was made clear for Aberdeenshire to promote a new Order to substitute the Order which the County was refused by the Parliamentary Commissioners for extra water to be taken from the Deveron at Cabrach. It is now proceeding to do this at Turriff. I do not know whether the Order has been laid, but I am indebted to all concerned for making the way clear.
I expressed my view on this issue in Committee on 21st March last, when I began by saying that I was pleased that all these matters had been taken into consideration. I did not express a view about either of the regions, although I said:I believe, irrespective of whether this becomes a full region or not, that the appropriate counties"—that is, Moray and Nairn and Banff—within the region would always want to have this kind of discussion from time to time. If the North-East Consultative Group is to function, it has to do so in the knowledge that the constituent local authorities will be able to take action, not only about water, but about any other matter relative to industrial expansion in that area.We all recognise that, for example, Peterhead has to go its own way in expanding its water supplies as a result of losing Cabrach. We do not know what will happen in that North-Eastern part of the North-East, although we want to see proper water supplies being maintained. As I said in Committee:It would seem to me that, considering the needs of the City of Aberdeen, the County of Aberdeenshire, and all the rest of the North-East, one ought to take into account the engineering strategy to be employed on the Rivers Don, Dee, Deveron, Spey, Findhorn and Ugie rather than a strategy as confined to two rivers.I went on:I put it to the Banff County Council deputation that if, by chance, Aberdeen did tap the Deveron, it might be that Banff would have to take water from the Spey, which would be comparatively expensive due to the distance.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st March, 1967: col. 501–2.]1478 At the meeting which, unfortunately, I could not attend—I could not attend them all—held in Aberdeen on 29th March, Colonel McKessack, who has been extremely progressive and broadminded in his approach to these matters—although he has always stuck to the idea that there should be a region of Moray and Nairn and Banff, made the point that, in his view, the fundamental approach to the problem had been wrong.A water survey in the North-East would have saved much of the argument being used at present and it was not too late to start such a survey, with facts and figures to put before the water authority before an irrevocable decision was made.That summarises the stage we had then reached at the meeting. There would be at least two regions. The argument whether there should be one region remained to be fought out, but we had arrived then—and a big movement was in progress—at a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff and a union of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City at least, together with an agreed strategy on the water Order governing the Deveron and an undertaking that in future this study would be proceeding.
I thought, and I hinted at it here, that the key lay with the City of Aberdeen. I did not influence the discussion at all. I was not present, but I have here the minutes of all the arguments used. Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), I did not instruct the Scottish Development Department officer to take the line he suggested. I will read the minute in relation to this point. It states:Thereafter, Mr. Dingwall-Smith enquired whether it was the feeling of the meeting that nothing should be done until the Government had decided on the region, sat thereafter the authorities would form a working party.He went on to explain:The meeting agreed to such an arrangement, and that the Department should ask the Town Clerk of Aberdeen to make arrangements for calling a meeting of the working party once the boundary question had been decided.Let hon. Members note that—"once the boundary question had been decided."
What the meeting decided was that it would not conduct two financial exercises, one of them based on two regions and one based on one region, but only one, but would be done when the boundary 1479 question had been agreed. That was the outcome of the meeting.
I must stress that what has been said by my hon. Friend on behalf of the City of Aberdeen is said much more cogently, with respect to him, than what is said in the minutes by the officials, but he has emphasised the big point, which is that the City of Aberdeen in the short term would gain by uniting only with the county. The City of Aberdeen in the short term would lose money if it united with the county and with the counties of Moray, Nairn and Banff.
The City of Aberdeen chose—and not only chose, but asked—to work with the region and, therefore, at short-term higher cost. It is not an ideal gesture by my hon. Friend to say that the city will not go into a region so truncated, because we then come back to the argument that the rivers of the North-East have to be taken into account in the expansion that should take place there, not only for housing, which is urgent, but for industry, which is equally urgent.
I did not intervene in this argument at all. The Secretary of State did not intervene at all. We waited to see the outcome of the discussions, because when authorities make a case and their case involves decisions which impinge on other authorities, it is wrong for the Secretary of State not to take account of the authorities which are affected by that decision. The one authority we had not consulted was the City of Aberdeen, the one authority that had made it clear that it wanted to unite with the County of Aberdeen.
The Secretary of State and I kept completely open minds. The deputation that came to see us would agree that we did not turn down flat any question of a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff. Mr. Armstrong, in his letter to me, said that they went forward to do this on my advice as a consequence of the meeting in St. Andrew's House. In other words, I did not close the gate at all but left it open for the discussions with the authorities.
What has become very clear is the position of the City of Aberdeen. I talked to one or two of my hon. Friend's constituents, and to one or two constituents of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on Friday, and there 1480 is not the same ill-feeling or the same intensity of feeling about this matter that there was at the earlier discussions. Having listened to the representations from Banff, Moray and Nairn, I am confident that if we proceed with the Schedule as it is, with great reluctance, but nevertheless with an anxiety to cooperate, we shall see the North-East Region getting on very well in the considerable work which it has to do. I am sorry that the meeting on 29th March came down so emphatically against two regions, but it gave the Government no option.
My own view, which I have often stated, is that we should have not 13 regions but fewer than that and in time we may see a fusion of some of these regions, which may make the situation a little easier for Moray. Nairn and Banff to accept. If Moray and Nairn and Banff are having to make a sacrifice in combining with Aberdeen, the City of Aberdeen is making a greater sacrifice. But all these are matters for the short term and in the long term it is right for all the areas to stick to what the Schedule proposes.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
I am extremely sorry that after all this consideration and meetings the Government are still not prepared to change the Schedule for the North-East, because this is the largest of the amalgamations which is being proposed, no fewer than 36 water authorities and covering a very large area geographically.
From the moment that this proposal was first put forward, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and I have represented the views of our local water authorities, which are that there should be two amalgamations, Banff, Moray and Nairn being one and the City and County of Aberdeen being another, including, if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had been accepted, the whole of Kincardine, making another large amalgamation.
The Minister has said that if Aberdeen City were to be in an amalgamation of the kind which I propose, it would be less expensive for it. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) agrees with that. The City of Aberdeen is now the only dissentient from the proposal which I am putting 1481 forward and that is on financial grounds which, according to the Minister, are mistaken financial grounds. None of the other authorities has any objection to the proposals which we are making and, as has been said, the three counties are all agreed on this amalgamation. There are 1'7 authorities which are willing amalgamators and the Government are simply rejecting this situation. The consultations and meetings have come to nothing. It seems to have been only token consultation.
The worst aspect of this is that the Government are not now prepared to make a single change in the Schedule. Not a comma or a word of the original Schedule put forward by the Water Advisory Committee have the Government changed. On Second Reading I asked for an assurance that the Government would be prepared to allow changes, but the steamroller has been in action.
My hon. Friend pointed out that since the Water Advisory Committee reported there have been changes in the situation. That Committee certainly was not expected to say the last word on the subject. The major scheme of the Cabrach has disappeared and another scheme has been agreed for the maximum amount of water which can be abstracted from the river Deveron. The Government are rejecting a willing amalgamation in which there would have been a spirit of co-operation and good will.
What is disconcerting is that the Minister of State personally gives the impression of being reasonable—he has all the way through—and of being ready to consider some of these proposals, but in he event no change has been allowed.
§ The steamroller has been there from the beginning. This precise pattern of Schedule 1 is to be forced on local authorities against their good advice and against their will.
§ What is dismaying about this is that it is being done by Scottish Ministers within Scotland on a subject entirely involving organisation within their own Scottish jurisdiction. It is not a Whitehall decision. It is not a matter in which the Treasury is bringing pressure to bear—there is no reason why it should. This is an example of the over-centralisation of decisions in St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh. Let those who advocate some form of self-government for Scotland ponder on this. If the same lot of Ministers were in office in a self-governing Scotland, presumably they would be behaving in exactly the same way to regions distant from Edinburgh. There is no protection for the regions in that proposal.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ This is a matter which is entirely within the power of consultation of the Secretary of State and within his decision in Scotland. The attitude being displayed by the Secretary of State shows that the Government are not concerned about the special problems of the regions distant from Edinburgh, that they are not concerned with the views of the local authorities in those regions, and that they are not prepared to modify proposals drawn up by the central Government. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this issue.
§ Question put, That the words "Aberchirder Town Council" stand part of the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 166. Noes 101.
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||MacPherson, Malcolm||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Gregory) Arnold||Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)||Rose, Paul|
|Crey, Charles (Durham)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Manuel, Archie||Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)|
|Hannan, William||Mapp, Charies||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)|
|Haseldine, Norman||Marquand, David||Ryan, John|
|Hilton, W. S.||Mason, Roy||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Hooley, Frank||Millan, Bruce||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Molloy, William||Stonehouse, John|
|Hoy, James||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Tinn, James|
|Hynd, John||Moyle, Roland||Urwin, T. W.|
|Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Murray, Albert||Varley, Eric G.|
|Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Neal, Harold||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Norwood, Christopher||Wallace, George|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Oakes, Gordon||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Kenyon, Clifford||O'Malley, Brian||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Orme, Stanley||Wellbeloved, James|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Oswald, Thomas||Whitaker, Ben|
|Lawson, George||Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Whitlock, William|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Palmer, Arthur||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Park, Trevor||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pavitt, Laurence||Wlliams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Luard, Evan||Pentland, Norman||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Winnick, David|
|McBride, Neil||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|MacColl, James||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|MacDermot, Niall||Rankin, John|
|McGuire, Michael||Reynolds, G. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Mr Walter Harrison and|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Mr Joseph Harper.|
|MacMillan, Maicolm (Western Isles)||Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) NOES|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Murton, Oscar|
|Allaaon, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Nicholls, Sir Harmar|
|Astor, John||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Hawkins, Paul||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Heseltine, Michael||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Blaker, Peter||Higgins, Terence L.||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Hiley, Joseph||Percival, Ian|
|Braine, Bernard||Hill, J. E. B.||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Holland, Philip||Pym, Francis|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hordern, Peter||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Hunt, John||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)||Iremonger, T. L.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Burden, F. A.||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Campbell, Gordon||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Jopling, Michael||Smith, John|
|Clegg, Walter||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Kimball, Marcus||Stodart, Anthony|
|Corfield, F. V.||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Costain, A. P.||Kitson, Timothy||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Dance, James||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Loveys, W. H.||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Lubbock, Eric||Temple, John M.|
|Drayson, G. B.||MacArthur, Ian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Walters, Dennis|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maginnls, John E.||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Maude, Angus||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Goodhew, Victor||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gower, Raymond||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Wright, Esmond|
|Grant, Anthony||Miscampbell, Norman||Younger, Hn. George|
|Grant-Ferris, R.||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Monro, Hector||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.||More, Jasper||Mr R. W. Elliott and|
|Gurden. Harold||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Mr Reginald Eyre.|