§ Mr. Alison
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:Provided that the Minister may by order change the name of the Corporation.I trust that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, fortified by the appreciable majority which they scored on the last Division, and mollified by the rapid progress that we are now making, will return to the earlier disposition which they showed and accept this reasonable and flexible Amendment which, I believe, may stand them in very good stead later on because it gives them the possibility at a later stage in the development of the activities of the Corporation of changing its name.
There are some genuinely unsatisfactory aspects of the present title with which, for understandable reasons, the Minister has had to saddle the new entity which the Organising Committee will bring into existence. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects is the somewhat narrow but genuine point that there already is in existence a National Steel Corporation, one in the United States, a substantial private steel company producing on its own equivalent to a quarter of the present output of the British steel industry.
780 When we touched earlier on the subject of the difficulties which might arise over patents as between the British National Steel Corporation and the National Steel Corporation in the United States, the Minister on the whole tended to wave aside our arguments, saying that he had gone into the facts and figures and only five patents were registered in the United Kingdom by the American National Steel Corporation. The implication of what he argued in Committee was that our Corporation and the one already in the United States are operating in two quite different spheres.
This reminded me of the days when the C.B.I. used to be called the F.B.I. When they looked up F.B.I. in the international commercial directories the Americans were always very surprised to find that it stood for the Federation of British Industries. This is because the F.B.I. is an American national organisation, and it is probably just as well that the American F.B.I. did not overlap. The truth was that it was reasonable that an international commercial directory should register the F.B.I. as the Federation of British Industries because the American F.B.I. was a national body and the British F.B.I. operated throughout the world.
But we are now reaching a situation in the way in which steel markets throughout the world are developing in which it 781 is clear that an increasing volume of steel, in the conditions of over-supply and over-capacity, will be flowing into the international markets. I believe that there genuinely is a growing possibility, particularly with the export trade and the cutback in demand for steel products in the domestic markets, for the National Steel Corporation of the United States and the National Steel Corporation of the United Kingdom to tangle in the international sphere. I believe that the Government should take cognisance of this because it is a real possibility, and on this narrow ground alone we want the Minister to give himself power to change the name if the need arises.
There is a wider aspect. We must now build into this British steel enterprise and the whole British steel industry an international flavour. It is self-evident that if we cannot earn our keep in steel in international trade—although we already export about a sixth of our output—there is no future for British steel. It is significant that the Government or public corporations which operate to some extent overseas—for example. B.E.A., although we know that its most popular route is from London to Scotland—deliberately include in their title "British". We believe that the Corporation should explicitly carry the title "British".
In Committee, the Minister argued that there are already in existence, as subsidiaries of the Federation, a body calling itself the British Steel Corporation and another calling itself the British Iron and Steel Corporation. That objection is no longer valid. On Second Reading, the Minister said:It is clearly essential that the nationalised companies should withdraw as quickly as possible, on fair terms, from the B.I.S.F. and that the central trading services operated by the Federation should be transferred to the Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1234.]This clearly shows that the subsidiaries of the Federation which carry the title "British" are to be taken over by the Corporation to become its subsidiaries. What an anomalous position it will be if the National Steel Corporation has two subsidiaries bearing the title "British" while, as the parent company, it cannot have the title but must retain the name 782 "National", which implies that "British" means a smaller grouping than "National", because "National" takes direct account of Northern Ireland.
We want to give the Minister flexibility without commitment now to a definite title. We want to give him the opportunity to be able to take on the title "British" for the Corporation, which will be a great national undertaking. This would facilitate its operations abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that for some time the overseas trading of the undertaking will be carried on by the old companies but he used that rather mischievous, ambiguous and shadowy word "initially", seeming to imply that the Corporation would eventually lend its title to the operations of British steel overseas.
Let him now give himself power without commitment to change the name. Any honest man proposing to go into the future would want to be in a position to change someone's name if he was a bachelor. Let us give the Minister power to change the name of the Corporation in the future, launching it into international trading with the full title of Britain. We hope that he will see his way to accepting this modest, constructive and reasonable Amendment.
Mr. Gresham Cooke
This is typical of the facility of the Labour Party for calling something by the wrong name. When we have unemployment, it calls it redeployment. When we have inflation, it calls it reflation. This Corporation is being set up to control the iron and steel industry and the Government call it the National Steel Corporation, disregarding the fact that the industry not only produces 27 million tons of steel, but 17 million tons of iron. The obvious name is the British Iron and Steel Corporation.
To call it the National Steel Corporation is the Labour Party falling into the old trap. It can never call a spade a spade, but must always choose a flowery title, usually to disguise what the thing is or is supposed to be.
§ Mr. Freeson
Unlike the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), the Government do not believe that the fact that the Corporation will have the same name as the American company which he mentioned need cause any difficulty. 783 In this country there will be no complications and no difficulty about registration, as the name "National Steel Corporation" will be conferred on the Corporation by an Act of Parliament. The American company has no branches in this country. It has some patents, but the register of patents clearly identifies it as a Corporation organised in the State of Delaware in the United States, so there is no difficulty, Finally, the choice of name for the Corporation is entirely within the purview of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In overseas countries where difficulties could arise it would be open to the Corporation to register subsidiary companies under appropriate names which would avoid any confusion in the countries concerned, America or anywhere else.
However, as my right hon. Friend said in Committee, the Government have considered calling the Corporation the "British Steel Corporation" or the "British Iron and Steel Corporation", which would be more happily received by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). But at present those names are pre-empted by the subsidiaries of the Federation which already exists.
As I understand it, the difficulty could be readily overcome when the Corporation is set up and there is a transfer of the central trading companies of the Federation to the Corporation. It would certainly be an advantage to the Corporation, if it were thought desirable, to adopt one or other of these names without having to have another Act of Parliament, and we will certainly want to take into account the advantage of having the word "British" in the title, one of the points made by both hon. Members.
The incorporation of a provision in the Bill which would allow the Minister to change the Corporation's name if it proved, contrary to expectation, that having the same name as the American company caused difficulties would also allow for speedy action without further Parliamentary action. The Amendment would certainly allow this to be done by Order and therefore, hon. Members will be happy to know, once again we accept the Amendment in principle.
There are certain drafting defects as the Amendment stands. Difficulty about 784 language is not confined to one or other parties in the House or anywhere else.
§ Mr. Alison
Is the difficulty about the wording connected with word "Order"? Is it a question of whether it would be an affirmative or negative procedure by which the change would be made?
§ Mr. Freeson
As I have said in a previous debate this evening, I do not speak here as drafting lawyer or officer, and I cannot say what the difficulties are. We must accept advice on these things and our advice is that there are drafting defects. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment, we will undertake to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, to leave out 'having perpetual succession' and to insert:'the powers and duties of which as conferred and imposed by this Act shall lapse after a period of ten years unless then renewed by Parliament'.I must admit that when, seeking some relief during the Recess, I returned to the Bill, I found my eye lighting almost for the first time on the words "perpetual succession". Reflecting, as I have for a good deal of time over the last few months, on the subject of the nationalisation of steel, I found these words at the very beginning of the Bill so odious that I thought that it would not be a bad idea if we left them out and substituted for them the modest and mild Amendment which I have moved and which would allow a review by Parliament of the successes or failures of the Corporation after a period of 10 years.
I do not believe that this is at all unreasonable. It might commend itself to the House, and I am confident that it will have the support of my hon. Friends. The Minister and the Government have had a great deal of time in which to prepare their plans for the future of the steel industry. Some of us suspect that those plans have not yet reached the stage of readiness which one might have expected after the long years of threat which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have 785 seen fit to hold over the head of the steel industry.
I suggest that now, as they are confident that they are doing the right thing, the best thing by the industry and the country, and that they are not pursuing merely doctrinaire aims in taking over this industry, it would be a very reasonable thing, in 10 years' time, for there to be a judgment. At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman will say that we have strong feelings against nationalisation, that we do not think that it is right but that he does.
I am not altogether certain that, from time to time, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman has felt this to be wrong. It is his job to say that this is not so, but I feel that the Minister ranks among those in the Socialist Party—I do not, of course, refer to the garrulous and cackling Left-wing, but to the more respectable section of the Socialist Party, and there is such a section—who feel that this is really a quite unnecessary experiment, which will not get anyone anywhere. All that I am suggesting in this very modest Amendment is that after 10 years the matter should be put on trial.
I must admit that there is a certain pessimism lurking in this Amendment, which I wish to discount immediately. It is only inserted there upon the unlikely premise that there will be a Socialist Government for another 10 years. I feel very confident that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has a large responsibility for this country's affairs, which his abilities make almost essential, one of the first things that he will wish to do is to disembarrass the State of the steel industry and return it to private enterprise and a state of competition, initiative and all the rest. We look forward to that day, but just in case the worst occurs, and we should have a Socialist Government in another 10 years, it would be a very becoming exercise in modesty for the right hon. Gentleman or his successor to be called to account at that Box, and to renew the mandate which this Bill is now giving him to take over this industry.
§ Sir D. Glover
This is the first time for many years when I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil 786 (Mr. Peyton). He has forgotten that no Parliament can bind another and that this Amendment is, therefore, irrelevant. Long before the 10 years are up another Parliament will have another opportunity of rescinding this business.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Barber
It is quite clear that my own party is divided fifty-fifty on this particular issue and it is right that I should express an opinion. It is a personal opinion, and I do not wish to fall out with either half of the Conservative Party.
I should not go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the simple reason that, as he said, this Amendment is proposed on the unlikely premise that we have a Socialist Government for the next 10 years. To me, that is such a remote possibility that I do not think that it is worth wasting Parliament's time to divide upon it.
§ Mr. Freeson
I trust, also, that the possibility of denationalisation is so remote as not to be worth considering.
Hon. Members will not expect me to receive this Amendment with the satisfaction with which I received one or two previous Amendments. In fact, it is a nonsense, as I believe the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) realises. It would insert in the Bill a provision which would effectively change the whole character of the Bill into a subsection making purely formal provisions for the Corporation. The absurdity is seen clearly when one realises how the Clause would read if the Amendment were inserted:The Corporation shall be a body corporate the powers and duties of which as conferred and imposed by this Act shall lapse after a period of ten years unless renewed by Parliament having a common seal.Apart from the drafting point, the Amendment is absurd on more general grounds. It would prolong the uncertainty which I think everybody accepts has been a curse on the industry for long enough and which it is important to end. It was for that reason as well as for others which have been ably pinpointed by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) today and yesterday in quoting from my election address that I referred to the remoteness of denationalisation. 787 It is important that that should be said, because one or two Members have hinted that this was in their minds. Very few Members on either side of the House and in the country would advocate a further measure of that kind.
§ Mr. Barber
I intervene only to urge the hon. Gentleman not to be unnecessarily provocative and to prolong the debate. I say this with great respect. We on these benches made our position on denationalisation absolutely clear on Second Reading. I do not want to have to go over the ground again. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not refer to the matter again, otherwise he will prolong our proceedings.
§ Mr. Freeson
I must be allowed to say what I wish to say in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of fun on this issue. One or two other Members have referred to the subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the graciousness to allow me to refer to it as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should allow me to complete my remarks.
I have said that the Amendment is an absurdity, and I have given the reason for saying that. I do not believe that any hon. Member wishes to divide on the issue. I ask the House to reject the Amendment if the hon. Member for Yeovil will not agree to withdraw it.
§ Sir J. Eden
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary took the Amendment seriously enough. He seemed to take exception to the advice given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). Had he been a member of Standing Committee D, he would have learned very rapidly how wise he would be to heed what my right hon. Friend said to him. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity at this stage of going too far in encouraging him to listen more attentively to the words which my right hon. Friend may say to him at a later date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who moved many Amendments throughout the Committee stage, which contributed greatly to the improvement of the Bill, has clearly given much thought to this Amendment. While I share with my right hon. Friend every 788 doubt as to the possibility of the maintenance in office of a Labour Government for such a long period as to necessitate the bringing into force of the Amendment, it would nevertheless be wise for the Government seriously to consider writing into the Bill every power which may save time later.
What is important in this context is that this would give them a chance to haw a second view of the matter. They cannot posibly get the whole structure and organisation right at first go, and I am therefore sure that my hon. Friend was correct in trying to write into the Bill some long-stop provision of this nature to give the Government an opportunity of a second look.
But I see the force of the speech made by my right hon. Friend and the contribution interjected by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), and I am tempted not to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to insist on forcing the Amendment to a Division. However, having had the opportunity of listening to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, I discount completely the matter of the speech, but what is worth voting against now and on every conceivable opportunity in the future is the hon. Gentleman's attitude.
It is precisely this arrogant, high-handed offensive approach which he is bringing to the conduct of the nation's affairs that I shall vote against on every conceivable occasion, and it is against this attitude that I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to divide the House.
§ Mr. Peyton
I should like to make one or two comments. Yesterday was the first performance of the Parliamentary Secretary at the Box. Without being particularly impressed by what happened, we gave him forbearance. Today he delivered his opinion on the subject of absurdity. On that, I am bound to concede, he is an expert. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General came in. He never contributes anything positive—
§ Mr. Peyton
My comments on my Amendment were interrupted by the unusual intrusion of the Paymaster-General and I was tempted to comment on the fact. At this time the Minister of Power, who during these proceedings, if I may say so, has developed a habit of courtesy towards us which has not been uninfluential in our proceedings, left the Chamber for a moment or so, which allowed the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity to get up and to reveal his inexperience to the full.
The hon. Member said that we were having fun. One thing I wish to make absolutely clear: if I could wreck this Bill, I would. The only reason why we did not intend to take the Amendment to a vote was that we knew perfectly well that at the right hon. Gentleman's beck and call, at the call of a bell, are hundreds of Members who will obediently come to vote for anything that their masters say. So we have decided that such an Amendment as this, which is plainly wrecking—I concede that—was probably not one worth voting on. It is not for me to decide. It is for my right hon. Friend, really. I would accept any advice he likes to give.
§ Mr. Peyton
No. My hon. Friend has co-operated with every person who sat behind him—so well, he now deserves our full support, and gets it. This is not the kind of thing which, I know, would be understood easily by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). If he wishes to interrupt me I shall be very glad to give way to him, because of all people whose presence we missed on the Standing Committee he perhaps, and his hon. Friend—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We may, too, have missed his presence—in the Standing Committee—but that is not what we are discussing here, and the hon. Member must come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Peyton
I was terribly provoked. Knowing as I do, Mr. Speaker, your great dislike of sedentary interruptions, I allowed myself that modest protest. I
§ am so sorry. I will endeavour, so long as I am not greatly provoked again, not to repeat my error.
§ Mr. Peyton
Your influence, Mr. Speaker, is communicating itself to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
But to return to this Amendment and the Parliamentary Secretary's astonishing performance on it. He then went on to dismiss the whole thing with the suggestion that we had had our bit of fun. I should like once again to re-echo and affirm, as I have done frequently in the past months, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, and so just dismiss this. I can agree with what he has said. I would only add to it that the Parliamentary Secretary has given a very good example of the insolence of puppyhood, and I think it worth while, if my right hon. Friend agrees with this course, that we should vote against the Parliamentary Secretary, just to show him.
§ Mr. Barber
By leave of the House, I spoke to this Amendment with great brevity for two reasons, first, because the case had been adequately put with great clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and, secondly, because, as my hon. Friend has just said, he did not intend to take his Amendment to a Division; but the whole House has witnessed what has happened during the past 10 or 15 minutes. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power, at the beginning of our deliberations in the Standing Committee, started, if I may say so, with much the same approach to Members of Parliament, but by Christmas time he had, I think, learned a thing or two.
The Parliamentary Secretary has brought this on himself, and I have not the slightest doubt, in view of his performance and of the things which he said, provocative in the extreme, that we should, in protest, divide the House.
§ Question put, That 'having perpetual succession' stand part of the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 216.791
|Division No. 239.]||AYES||[9.59 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Alldritt, Walter||Archer, Peter|
|Albu, Austen||Allen, Scholefield||Armstrong, Ernest|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Anderson, Donald||Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Ford, Ben||MacPherson, Maicolm|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Forrester, John||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Fowler, Gerry||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|
|Barnett, Joel||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Beaney, Alan||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)||Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)|
|Bence, Cyril||Freeson, Reginald||Manuel, Archie|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Mapp, Charles|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Gardner, Tony||Marquand, David|
|Binns, John||Garrett, W. E.||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Bishop, E. S.||Ginsburg, David||Mason, Roy|
|Blackburn, F.||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Mayhew, Christopher|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Mellish, Robert|
|Boardman, H.||Gregory, Arnold||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Booth, Albert||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Boston, Terence||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)||Millan, Bruce|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Boyden, James||Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Molloy, William|
|Bradley, Tom||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Moonman, Eric|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Hamling, William||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Brooks, Edwin||Hannan, William||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Harper, Joseph||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Moyle, Roland|
|Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)||Haseldine, Norman||Murray, Albert|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Hattersley, Roy||Neal, Harold|
|Buchan, Norman||Hazeil, Bert||Newens, Stan|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Heffer, Eric S.||Norwood, Christopher|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Henig, Stanley||Oakes, Gordon|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||O'Malley, Brian|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Hilton, W. S.||Oram, Albert E.|
|Cant, R. B.||Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hooley, Frank||Orme, Stanley|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hooson, Emlyn||Oswald, Thomas|
|Chapman, Donald||Horner, John||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|Coe, Denis||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Owen, Will (Morpeth)|
|Coleman, Donald||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Concannon, J. D.||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Pannnell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Conian, Bernard||Howie, W.||Pardoe, John|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hoy, James||Park, Trevor|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)|
|Cronin John||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hunter, Adam||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Jeger, George (Goole)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)|
|Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)|
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)||Probert, Arthur|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Judd, Frank||Randall, Harry|
|Davies, Robert (Cambridge)||Kenyon, Clifford||Rankin, John|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)||Redhead, Edward|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lawson, George||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Dell, Edmund||Leadbitter, Ted||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Dempsey, James||Ledger, Ron||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Dewar, Donald||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Lee, John (Reading)||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)|
|Dickens, James||Lestor, Miss Joan||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Dobson, Ray||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kcnneth(St.P'c'as)|
|Doig, Peter||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)|
|Driberg, Tom||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Dunn, James A.||Lipton, Marcus||Roebuck, Roy|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lomas, Kenneth||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Loughlin, Charles||Rose, Paul|
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Luard, Evan||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Eadie, Alex||Lubbock, Eric||Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Ryan, John|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)|
|Ellis, John||McCann, John||Sheldon, Robert|
|English, Michael||MacColl, James||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.|
|Ennals, David||Macdonald, A. H.||Shore, Peter (Stepney)|
|Ensor, David||McGuire, Michael||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mackie, John||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mackintosh, John P.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Maclennan, Robert||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Foley, Maurice||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Small, William|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Snow, Julian|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Steel, David (Roxburgh)||Walden, Brian (All Saints)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||Wallace, George||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Taverne, Dick||Watkins, David (Consett)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Thomson, Rt. Hn. George||Weitzman, David||Winnick, David|
|Thornton, Ernest||Wellbeloved, James||Winstanley Dr. M. P.|
|Thorpe, Jeremy||Whitaker, Ben||Woof, Robert|
|Tinn, James||White, Mrs. Eirene||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Tomney, Frank||Whitlock, William||Yates, Victor|
|Tuck, Raphael||Wigg, Rt. Hn. George|
|Urwin, T. W.||Wilkins, W. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Varley, Eric G.||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)||Mr. McBride and|
|Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)||Mr. Ioan L. Evans.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Gibson-Watt, David||Maddan, Martin|
|Astor, John||Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan||Maginnis, John E,|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Marten, Neil|
|Awdry, Daniel||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maude, Angus|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Glover, Sir Douglas||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Balniel, Lord||Glyn, Sir Richard||Mawby, Ray|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Batsford, Brian||Goodhart, Philip||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Goodhew, Victor||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Bell, Ronald||Grant-Ferris, R.||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Gresham Cooke, R.||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Biffen, John||Grieve, Percy||Monro, Hector|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||More, Jasper|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Gurden, Harold||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Blaker, Peter||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Body, Richard||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Murton, Oscar|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Neave, Airey|
|Braine, Bernard||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Nott, John|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian|
|Bryan, Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)||Hawkins, Paul||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Hay, John||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Burden, F. A.||Heseltine, Michael||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Campbell, Gordon||Higgins, Terence L.||Peel, John|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hill, J. E. B.||Percival, Ian|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Hirst, Geoffrey||Peyton, John|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Pounder, Rafton|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Holland, Philip||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Clark, Henry||Hordern, Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Clegg, Walter||Hornby, Richard||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Cooke, Robert||Howell, David (Guildford)||Pym, Francis|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Hunt, John||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Costain, A. P.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)||Iremonger, T. L.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Crouch, David||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Crowder, F. P.||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Cunningham, Sir Knox||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Jopling, Michael||Roots, William|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Dance, James||Kershaw, Anthony||Royle, Anthony|
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Kimball, Marcus||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Kirk, Peter||Scott, Nicholas|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kitson, Timothy||Sharpies, Richard|
|Doughty, Charles||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Lambton, Viscount||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Smith, John|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Stainton, Keith|
|Eden, Sir John||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Stodart, Anthony|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Farr, John||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Loveys, W. H.||Testing, Sir William|
|Forrest, George||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Temple, John M.|
|Fortescue, Tim||MacArthur, Ian||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Foster, sir John||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Tilney, John|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Vickers, Dame Joan||Wells, John (Maidstone)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Walker, Peter (Worcester)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William||Wylie, N. R.|
|Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Wall, Patrick||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Walters, Dennis||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Weatherill, Bernard||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard||Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Grant|
|Webster, David||Woodnutt, Mark|
§ It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.