HC Deb 24 January 1967 vol 739 cc1295-309
Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 27, to leave out lines 35 to 39.

I can move this Amendment with a one-word speech.


Mr. Freeson

In contrast to my comments on the last Amendment, I think that I must speak at somewhat greater length in response to the hon. Gentleman's very short question.

As I see it, the effect of the Amendment would be to delete this Clause, which was inserted as a result of a Government Amendment in Committee, and exempts the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies from the system of control introduced by the Building Control Act, 1966. I could speak at some length on this, but the essential point here is that, whereas prior to the Building Control Act, 1966, there were no general or specific controls—at least for quite a number of years—on the building industry, or on developers generally, there have been in the nationalised industries, or within the nationalised industries coming under the Minister, and indeed in certain other respects so far as Government activities are concerned, very tight controls over investments which involve building activities. It is this kind of control which is being continued and would have been continued even if there had been no Building Control Act applicable generally in the economy.

That, briefly, is the answer. It is unnecessary to require this double control when we already have the control within the nationalised industries.

Mr. Peyton

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that answer, which, oddly enough, is rather on the lines that I had expected. I think that appearances matter. When the Government introduce a great panoply of controls such as we know are dear to the hearts of the Socialist party, I look with a certain amount of jeolousy and suspicion at the suggestion that nationalised industries, or for that matter anyone whom the Government may particularly favour, should be exempted from those controls. This is not because I have a vindictive attitude to the nationalised industries, or that I wish to get in a dig at them at every possible opportunity; nothing of the kind. It is merely that when a statute like this is established as the law of the land it is most undesirable, from every point of view, that any particular organisation or organisations should be excluded from the operation of that Statute.

I think that ours is a justifiable complaint, and I am rather sorry that my exceedingly brief, but nevertheless relevant, speech has not elicited a more convincing explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. The mere fact that there is a measure of control by the Government over the investments of the nationalised industries is not itself adequate. For financial reasons there is ample control over private enterprise building and investment from their own boardrooms and managements. It is quite another matter to exclude the nationalised industries from a statute which this House has solemnly, —in this case not in its wisdom; I think rather foolishly—decided to put on the Statute Book.

Though it be the one I expected, I find the hon. Gentleman's explanation very unsatisfactory indeed. The hon. Gentleman is not personally to blame; it is the Government's responsibility.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

Effectively, what the Government are saying is that the nationalised steel industry may contract out of the form of building control which is to be applied to the private enterprise steel companies, notwithstanding the fact that the Government sector, the National Steel Corporation, will directly be in competition with those private steel manufacturing firms.

Why should there be one set of rules, Ministerially inspired, for the nationalised sector, and another set of rules, perhaps judged by different standards—because it will be a different body exercising the controls, it will not be the Minister of Power exercising them—for the private sector of the industry? The Corporation should have to apply through the machinery which applies in respect of building controls for the whole of private industry.

We are creating a situation whereby the Minister of Power will judge the efficacy or otherwise of an application for building in excess of a specified sum for the investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed.

4.45 p.m.

My second point is that the Ministry of Power has loosely controlled the capital investment programmes of the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries for the past 20 years, but it has not done so very well, and it does not do it in detail. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt about that, he might read, if he has not already done so, the publications on nationalised industries by former civil servants who worked in the Ministry for many years. In those publications it is brought out with the greatest authority that in the case of the biggest investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed. This is my second point.

My third point, and I think the most valid of all, is that we have said all the way through the Bill, with a good deal of support from the Treasury Bench, that the intention is that the steel industry shall be operated as a commercial enterprise. If it is operated as a commercial enterprise, it should submit to commercial standards, and if commercial standards are to be applied on a profit-earning basis in the private sector of the steel industry, which admittedly is no more than 7 or 8 per cent., then the same standards should be operated in the nationalised sector of the industry, which is of the order of 93 per cent.

Is the Ministry of Power in a position to judge by commercial standards what is a desirable investment in building? The answer is that of course it is not. Civil servants never are.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

It has not the resources.

Sir G. Nabarro

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, it has not the resources to do it, nor have civil servants the necessary training to do it. This is what is wrong with bureaucracy. They follow a set of rules in a rule book, and they advise the Minister accordingly, all within a generic and overall total sum of money which is impressed on them by the Treasury.

The commercial viability of an enterprise cannot effectively be judged by the bureaucracy, nor have politicians the wherewithal to judge it. Has the Minister of Power—or indeed his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology—the commercial acumen, the foresight, the prescience, necessary to judge whether a particular building enterprise, possibly involving millions of £s, is a desirable venture?

Mr. Lubbock

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Power has not yet given approval to the capital investment programme of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is normally approved by the end of the year? Does this not show that the Ministry is falling behind in its work, without having this additional burden imposed on it?

Sir G. Nabarro

That is so. The capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries were the principal cause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to this House on 2nd May last and asking for an overall surplus in the mammoth sum of £1,007 million to cover below-the-line expenditure, most largely the below-the-line expenditure of the nationalised industries. There is enormous extravagance today in the nationalised industry to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred, electricity generation, where I believe the Minister has called for sums of money three or four times greater than he actually needs. I can only raise this point in passing. It would be out of order to explore it in depth.

I give it as an example because, in my judgment, it demonstrates that the Ministry of Power does not have the facilities, nor its civil servants the training, to adjudge whether projects are commercially viable and enterprising and are likely to earn profits in the future. Having regard to all these circumstances, is it right that the Corporation should contract out—that is what it is—of the penetrating standards of examination which are applicable to the private sector of the steel industry?

I have no confidence whatever in the analytical capacity of the Minister in financial matters and my hon. Friends should at this juncture say, as a matter of principle, that Parliament requires closer scrutiny than a single, global, generic and empirical annual figure for the capital of the steel industry approved by the Minister, including building consents, remembering that once they have been approved they will be unchallengeable by this House.

On a similar point last night, when my hon. Friends were pleading for the affirmative procedure to be adopted, the Minister said, "We all know that the Minister can be challenged in the House of Commons; the Opposition can put down a Motion of censure". We do not want to do that on matters of capital expenditure authorised by the Minister for individual industries. That would make a mockery of the highest form of Parliamentary attack. We want Parliamentary instruments and methods of scrutinising what the Minister is authorising, but we will not have them according to the Bill as drafted.

I hope that the Minister will not reply by simply saying "No" but will endeavour conscientiously to meet the valid arguments that have been adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I evolved a better system of controlling the expenditure of the nationalised industries, and while it took us 10 years, from 1951 to 1961, to make a small dent in this procedure, we are far from having enough annual Parliamentary control over matters of this sort.

I hope that my hon. Friends will not laugh this off as a minor Amendment simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was so magnanimous in moving it; simply by using the word "Why". I have in the past used many thousands of words to justify the principle of the Amendment. Unless the Minister is more forthcoming, I hope that my hon. Friends will, to ensure the control of investment on a proper Parliamentary basis, vote on this issue.

Mr. George Forrest (Mid-Ulster)

Considering that, in addition to the right hon. Gentleman, there are five hon. Members on the benches opposite, I congratulate the Minister on the amount of support he has managed to muster on this occasion. At no previous time during this discussion has he had so much support.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

Is the hon. Gentleman making a maiden speech?

Mr. Forrest

I am not. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on anything I have to say he should rise to his feet and say it Having listened to the whole of the discussion, I cannot understand why, since hon. Gentlemen opposite are so in favour of nationalisation, they do not bother to listen to what is being said on the subject.

Sir G. Nabarro

They are in the Tea Room.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

With the Tories.

Mr. Forrest

I came to the House last night armed with notes for a couple of speeches in favour of an Amendment which stood in the name of a good Scottish hon. Member. On that occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite stated that although they had a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's good Unionist proposal, they would not under any circumstances vote against the Government. For this reason we should oppose the Bill at every point.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh)

Speak for Britain.

Mr. Anthony Barber (Altrincham and Sale)

No insults to Ulster, please.

The Minister will have listened to the reasoned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) and I would not like to fall foul of the Chair by elaborating his point about lack of support for the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer, though courteous, was completely unsatisfactory. When this matter was debated in Standing Committee on a new Clause moved by the Minister—the provision which the Amendment seeks to delete—the right hon. Gentleman said: …there is already, in the nationalisation statutes, power in the hands of the Minister to control capital development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2377.] However, this part of the Bill is concerned with any building project of a kind covered by the Building Control Act, 1966, which costs more than £50,000. Will the Minister deal with matters of this kind—with every relevant building project by the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries costing more than £50,000? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pointed out what we know to be the truth; that the Minister does not concern himself with matters of detail of this kind. Instead, they are considered by junior officials in the Ministry. The Minister accepts responsibility, but he would never know about a project as minor as this and we in the House of Commons would not have an opportunity of questioning him about it.

The Minister has repeatedly said that the new steel industry is to be operated on commercial lines. In that case, let it be operated subject to the same advantages, but also to the same multifarious and manifold Government hindrances, suffered by the private sector. There is only one way to ensure that this will happen, and that is by supporting the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock

I was in two minds about the Amendment until I listened to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest), who not only convinced me of the strength of the case but also appeared to convince the Government Front Bench, because I noticed that when he resumed his seat the Minister and his colleagues cheered.

Mr. Marsh

Since I came into the Chamber rather late, would the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) succinctly précis the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest)?

Mr. Lubbock

The hon. Gentleman adduced a complicated argument. I do not think I have the experience of public speaking to summarise it in a way that would be intelligible to the Minister. I suggest we leave it to HANSARD; and we will read with interest the important words uttered by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forrest

On a point of order. Surely the people of Mid-Ulster are as entitled to be represented in this House as the people of Orpington.

The Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

That is not a point of order, although the hon. Gentleman's observation is quite correct.

Mr. Lubbock

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take anything I have said as being critical of his speech. I listened to him with the greatest respect and interest and look forward to reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of his remarks.

As the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, the Minister said in Committee that there already existed in the nationalisation Statutes power for the Minister to control capital development. That is perfectly true, but I submit that different criteria will be applied by the Minister in approving the capital development programmes of the Corporation than will be applied by the Minister of Public Building and Works in interpreting the Building Control Act, 1966.

The main purpose of the 1966 Act is to ensure that the load of work on the construction industry in areas where it is already overloaded is relieved so that building firms may concentrate their energies on essential projects, particularly housing, whereas the Minister, in giving his consent to building projects which would otherwise fall under the Act, will be thinking purely in terms of economics and about whether the investment in buildings will bring about for the Corporation the sort of return he thinks is necessary.

We shall, therefore, have one set of rules for the private sector and a completely different set—which might be good in themselves—for the public sector. If the Building Control Act, 1966, is to mean anything and if the load is to be taken off the construction industry in areas where it is overloaded, the same rules should be applied to both sectors. That being so, I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will, in view of the strong arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, accept it.

Mr. Freeson

I regret that I cannot accept the arguments, and we must resist the Amendment. A good deal of misunderstanding has been injected into the discussion. I do not wish to extend it widely over the question of building control any more than other hon. Members have done but will simply touch upon it.

It is quite wrong to suggest that by excluding the steel industry from control under the Building Control Act, 1966, a double standard is being applied, as was indicated by all hon. Members opposite who have spoken with the honourable exception of the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest).

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

Should not the hon. Gentleman have said "with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster"?

Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

He could have said "with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster".

Mr. Freeson

Hon. Members opposite have made the point clearly. There is no question of a double standard here.

Over a good many years, ever since nationalisation was introduced for a number of industries, there has been close Government control over investment policies in these industries, just as there has been over a wide range of public expenditure and activity in building construction. One example, is local authority housing. A wide range of educational expenditure, and so on, can be added to the list. Such control has already existed. It continues to exist.

Neither in the case of the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science nor of any other nationalised industry are the activities concerned with building brought within the scope of the Building Control Act, 1966, for the very reason that they already were under control. The whole object of the 1966 Act was to provide some kind of control in this field outside the public sector.

Having made those general observations on the purpose or philosophy of the 1966 Act, I come back to the steel industry—

Mr. Barber

The hon. Gentleman made an error, I think, a moment ago when he said that the Building Control Act was not to apply to the steel industry. It is not to apply to the nationalised part of the steel industry, but it will apply to the private sector. The important point is that there is here direct competition between comparable companies of a sort which does not apply to education and the other sectors which the hon. Gentle- man has mentioned. It is for this reason and in the light of what has been said that I must advise my hon. Friends to divide in support of their Amendment.

Mr. Freeson

There still continues to be a misunderstanding here. While it is true that different Acts of Parliament apply in the field of control, the fact remains that there will still be control. What we are saying is that that part of the steel industry which will become the public sector, should operate under the same conditions as other nationalised industries which are already subject to control in this way.

Mr. Forrest

Where are the hon. Members on the Government side who represent steel constituencies?

Mr. Freeson

Perhaps we can meet afterwards in the Lobby and discuss matters further.

I stress that there is no question of double standards. Controls already exist in the nationalised sector. They will exist in the nationalised sector of the steel industry just as they have been applied in different ways under the Building Control Act, 1966, which also is selective in its application. That, however, is a matter for another Minister and not for us this evening to go into detail.

The Building Control Act, 1966, provides that no building works except those for housing, industrial building and laboratories and any in development districts should proceed without a licence where the projects concerned are likely to cost £50,000 or more. All the nationalised industries as listed in the Schedule to that Act were exempt from this requirement. We suggest that the same thing should apply equally with regard to the steel industry.

Sir G. Nabarro

The Parliamentary Secretary is not dealing with the point put forward by myself or the point made by any of my hon. Friends. I have with me the Schedule to the Building Control Act, 1966. It delineates all the nationalised industries. None of those industries, however, has a private sector against which to compete. That is the first essential point. The second essential point is that none of those industries is a manufacturing industry such as steel, which has to compete both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is, therefore, wholly fallacious to compare the position of the National Steel Corporation with, for example, the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board.

Mr. Freeson

I need not repeat all the points I have been making. I repeat, however, that exactly the same type of control is being applied, or would be applied by the Ministry of Power, in this sector as is already being applied in other nationalised sectors and is being applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector.

Mr. Peyton

The Parliamentary Secretary need not go into this at length. The question which he is not facing is our objection that this control which is imposed on private industry is imposed by different people for different purposes from different points of view. It is no good the hon. Gentleman going into the fact that these errors have been committed before. We did our best to discourage the Minister from pursuing this doctrine, which I can only describe as the perpetuation of past errors. There is nothing that

Division No. 247.] AYES [5.12 p.m.
Abse, Leo Concannon, J. D. Fowler, Gerry
Albu, Austen Conlan, Bernard Fraser, John (Norwood)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Freeson, Reginald
Alldritt, Walter Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gardner, Tony
Allen, Scholefield Crawshaw, Richard Ginsburg, David
Anderson, Donald Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Gourlay, Harry
Archer, Peter Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Armstrong, Ernest Dalyell, Tam Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Gregory, Arnold
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Davies, Harold (Leek) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Barnett, Joel Delargy, Hugh Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Dewar, Donald Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bence, Cyril Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Harper, Joseph
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Dobson, Ray Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bidwell, Sydney Doig, Peter Hart, Mrs. Judith
Binns, John Driberg, Tom Haseldine, Norman
Blackburn, F Dunn, James A. Hazell, Bert
Boardman, H. Dunnett, Jack Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Booth, Albert Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Henig, Stanley
Boston, Terence Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Eadie, Alex Hilton, W. S.
Boyden, James Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Hooley, Frank
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Edwards, William (Merioneth) Horner, John
Bradley, Tom Ellis, John Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy English, Michael Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Brooks, Edwin Ennals, David Howie, W.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Ensor, David Hoy, James
Brown, Bob (M'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W) Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Buchan, Norman Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Finch, Harold Hunter, Adam
Cant, R. B. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Hynd, John
Carmichael, Neil Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Foley, Maurice Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Chapman, Donald Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Janner, Sir Barnett
Coe, Denis Ford, Ben Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Coleman, Donald Forrester, John Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn&St. P'crae, S.)

the hon. Gentleman can say to justify it. We had better divide.

Mr. Freeson

No doubt hon. Members opposite want to divide, but if they keep on repeating points in error I must deal with them. I will not elaborate the point because I have dealt with it, but I repeat that the same kind of control will apply in the public sector of the steel industry as will be applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works over the private sector.

The adequacy of the controls was questioned. I can only say that we in the Ministry of Power are just as capable of providing as adequate a control in the public sector as will be exercised by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector, and which hon. Members opposite would like us to follow for the nationalised steel industry.

I have covered the points as well as I have been able. There is no double standard. There will be no inadequate control. We must resist the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Morris, John (Aberavon) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Strechford) Moyle, Roland Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Murray, Albert Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Neal, Harold Slater, Joseph
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Norwood, Christopher Small, William
Judd, Frank Oakes, Gordon Snow, Julian
Kenyon, Clifford Ogden, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) O'Malley, Brian Steele, Thomas (Dumbartonshire, W.)
Lawson, George Oram, Albert E. Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ledger, Ron Orbach, Maurice Stonehouse, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Orme, Stanley Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lipton, Marcus Oswald, Thomas Swain, Thomas
Lomas, Kenneth Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Swingler, Stephen
Loughlin, Charles Owen, Will (Morpeth) Symonds, J. B.
Luard, Evan Paget, R. T. Taverne, Dick
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Palmer, Arthur Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Park, Trevor Thornton, Ernest
McCann, John Parker, John (Dagenham) Tinn, James
MacColl, James Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Tomney, Frank
MacDermot, Niall Pavitt, Laurence Tuck, Raphael
Macdonald, A. H. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Urwin, T. W.
McGuire, Michael Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Varley, Eric G.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret Pentland, Norman Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mackie, John Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Wallace, George
Mackintosh, John P. Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Watkins, David (Consett)
Maclennan, Robert Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Probert, Arthur Weitzman, David
McNamara, J. Kevin Randall, Harry Wellbeloved, James
MacPherson, Malcolm Rankin, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Redhead, Edward Whitaker, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Reynolds, G. W. White, Mrs. Eirene
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Rhodes, Geoffrey Whitlock, William
Mal1alieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.) Richard. Ivor Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Mapp, Charles Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilkins, W. A.
Marquand, David Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mason, Roy Rodgers, William (Stockton) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mayhew, Christopher Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mellish, Robert Rose, Paul Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mendelson, J. J. Ross, Rt. Hn. William Winnick, David
Mikardo, Ian Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) Winterbottom, R. E.
Millan, Bruce Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Ryan, John Woof, Robert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Yates, Victor
Molloy, William Sheldon, Robert Zilliacus, K.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythershawe) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) Mr. Grey and Mr. McBride.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Campbell, Gordon Forrest, George
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Fortescue, Tim
Astor, John Cary, Sir Robert Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Channon, H. P. G. Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Awdry, Daniel Chichester-Clark, R. Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Baker, W. H. K. Clark, Henry Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Clegg, Walter Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Batsford, Brian Cooke, Robert Glover, Sir Douglas
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Glyn, Sir Richard
Bell, Ronald Cordle, John Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Costain, A. P. Goodhart, Philip
Berry, Hn. Anthony Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Gower, Raymond
Bessell, Peter Crawley, Aidan Grant, Anthony
Biffen, John Crouch, David Grant-Ferris, R.
Biggs-Davison, John Crowder, F. P. Gresham Cooke, R.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Cunningham, Sir Knox Grieve, Percy
Black, Sir Cyril Currie, G. B. H. Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Blaker, Peter Dalkeith, Earl of Hall, John (Wycombe)
Body, Richard Dance, James Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Bossom, Sir Clive d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Braine, Bernard Digby, Simon Wingfield Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Doughty, Charles Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Drayson, G. B. Hastings, Stephen
Brown, St Edward (Bath) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hawkins, Paul
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Eden, Sir John Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Bryan, Paul Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Buchanan, Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Eyre, Reginald Heseltine, Michael
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Farr, John Higgins, Terence L
Bullus, Sir Eric Fisher, Nigel Hill J. E. B.
Burden, F. A. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hirst, Geoffrey
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. St. John-Stevas, Norman
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Mills, Peter (Torrington) Scott, Nicholas
Holland, Philip Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Sharples, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn Miscampbell, Norman Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hordern, Peter Monro, Hector Sinclair, Sir George
Hornby, Richard More, Jasper Smith, John
Howell, David (Guildford) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Stainton, Keith
Hunt, John Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Steel, David (Roxburg)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Summers, Sir Spencer
Iremonger, T. L. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Murton, Oscar Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Neave, Airey Teeling, Sir William
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Temple, John M.
Jopling, Michael Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Nott, John Tilney, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry Onslow, Cranley Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Kimball, Marcus Orr, Capt. L. P. S. van Straubenzee, W. R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Vickers, Dame Joan
Kitson, Timothy Osborn, John (Hallam) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Knight, Mrs. Jilt Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Lambton, Viscount Page, Graham (Crosby) Wall, Patrick
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Page, John (Harrow, W.) Walters, Dennis
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Ward, Dame Irene
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Percival, Ian Weatherill, Bernard
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Peyton, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Pink, R. Bonner Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Longden, Gilbert Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Loveys, W. H. Price, David (Eastleigh) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lubbock, Eric Pym, Francis Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen Quennell, Miss J. M. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Woodnutt, Mark
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Rees-Davies, W. R. Worsley, Marcus
Maddan, Martin Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Wylie, N. R.
Maginnis, John E. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Younger, Hn. George
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Ridsdale, Julian
Marten, Neil Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maude, Angus Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. David Mitchell.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Royle, Anthony
Mawby, Ray Russell, Sir Ronald