HC Deb 24 January 1967 vol 739 cc1309-25
Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 27, line 44, at the end to insert: The Corporation shall not, without the permission of the Minister, locate its head office in the Greater London Area. This is an Amendment to a new Clause I moved in Standing Committee. If the purpose of the Clause is to be put into practice, it is essential that the Amendment be accepted. The Clause provides that In determining the location of its commercial and administratve offices, the Corporation shall have regard to where the steel is produced and also to the desirability of distributing major offices throughout the United Kingdom.

It was a serious point I made. I am glad to say that more than half the members of the Standing Committee supported my contention. The Government accepted it. I was distressed to discover that one of the reasons why the Government felt able to accept it was that they believed that there was not much point in the Clause and that it did not oblige anybody to do anything. We must therefore press the Government by writing a little more specification into the Clause.

I accept that the Corporation must be free to take into account all relevant considerations in making its decision. The Amendment would allow full scope to the Corporation to make what decision it thought fit, except in one limited circumstance, namely, if it were to decide that the headquarters of its organisation should be in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation wanted to locate its head office in Wales, in Glasgow, in Sheffield, in Newcastle, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, it would be free to do so. The only limitation we are putting on the Corporation is if it were to decide to locate its headquarters in London.

It would be short-sighted, irresponsible and economic madness for the Government to locate this headquarters office in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation were to decide to locate its headquarters in London, there would be a volume of protest from Rutherglen to the Rhondda Valley. The Government's good faith on the distribution of offices is at stake. This is the first major decision they will have to make on the location of a substantial headquarters of a local authority. The Government's good intentions and good faith will be on trial.

The Amendment should not be necessary, because all the arguments point to the headquarters of the organisation going elsewhere than London. What should the Government take into account? They should take into account, first, where the steel is produced. What are the alternatives? There are 31,000 men employed in steel in Scotland, 57,000 in Sheffield, 59,000 in South Wales, and 39,000 on the North-East Coast. The map which was issued with "Steel Statistics" showing where steel is produced indicates clearly that there is little, if any steel, produced south of a line drawn between the Wash and the Severn. To that extent, the alternatives would seem to be where the steel is produced. I am not making a special pleading for Scotland or for Glasgow. I ask the Government to do what they can to ensure that the offices will be located where the steel is produced.

The second factor the Government should take into account is where the steel is used—in other words, where heavy industry is located. This is certainly not in the Greater London area. The Government should take these factors into account. They should also take into account the desirability of distributing major Government offices throughout the United Kingdom.

On 1st October of last year there were almost 1 million non-industrial civil servants. This is a very substantial number of employed people earning money through the Civil Service. Obviously civil servants must be spread throughout the whole country. What worries me is that the top jobs with the high earnings tend more and more to be concentrated in the Greater London area. This means that the opportunities, the top jobs and the top salaries are not available throughout the country. Scotland has one-tenth of the United Kingdom's total population, yet the only major Government headquarters office, which we will have shortly, is the Post Office Savings Bank, thanks to a decision made by the Tory Government and being promulgated at present.

Emigration from Scotland is now running at 47,000 a year—an all-time high. This figure is increasing. This is worrying in itself. What is more worrying is the quality of those who are leaving. A higher proportion of Scottish young people go to university than in any other part of the country. It is essential that they have opportunities for the top jobs at the top salaries in Scotland. This applies to Wales and to the other development districts. This is why the Tory Government were right to make the decision in principle to distribute major Government offices throughout the country.

I should like to see the Labour Government showing, not only that they pay lip service to this principle, as I know that they readily will, but also that they are prepared to do something about it. The danger is that, because of the concentration of top jobs and top salaries in London, instead of having integrated factories in the regions, we are merely having workshops, while the decisions, the top salaries, and all the rest, are becoming concentrated more and more in the London area. This is happening in private industry as well as in the public sector. Something must be done about it.

For these reasons, we must put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the Government to make this decision, if the Corporation should decide to have its headquarters in the Greater London area. If the Government do not accept this, they will be shirking their responsibilities because, even though we have the Clause, unless the Government are prepared to take some initiative I fear that the headquarters of the organisation, like the headquarters of so many Government organisations, will be sited in London.

Everyone is familiar with the reasons why we do not want more offices to be concentrated in London. This is why the Government have introduced certain Bills affecting the private sector. We want the same principle to be applied to Government offices as well. The tragedy is that, although the Government try to discourage office buildings in our major city centres, when a building becomes vacant it is usually a Government office or a Government-sponsored organisation which moves into it quickly. We ask the Government to take the lead in the distribution of offices.

My final point relates to the simple question of justice. A large proportion of the population of the United Kingdom is situated in Wales. One-tenth of the total United Kingdom population is in Scotland On the North-East Coast there is a high proporation. Surely we are entitled to some share of the major Government offices, of the jobs they bring, and of the opportunities they bring. Unless we have these, the scope of opportunities in the regions will certainly not be the same as it is in the centre.

I want to make this the Government's decision. I do not say that under the Amendment we should prevent the Corporation from having its office in London. There might be such overwhelming reasons in favour of its being sited there that such a decision would be inevitable. However, there should be a thorough examination of all the arguments. This examination should be made by the Government.

I have explained that I am not at all happy with the Bill. It could be the beginning of the end for Scottish steel if the Government bring in differential prices, as with the other nationalised industries. This is why I am absolutely delighted that on this important Amendment, which is of significance to Scotland. the Minister of State, Scottish Office and two of the Under-Secretaries of State are present. This may be a belated indication that the Government are now aware of the desperate dangers to Scottish steel which the Bill presents.

I should like to have the assurance, which the presence of these three Ministers indicates can be given, that the Government are now becoming aware that the Bill could be disastrous for Scottish steel. I want in some way to temper that by ensuring that at least in regard to offices the Government are prepared to carry the responsibility themselves. This is what they should be prepared to do. If they believe in regional development, let them take the responsibility of undertaking a thorough examination of any proposal that the offices be located in London. I fear that the decision on the location of the headquarters might already have been taken. I want to ensure that there will be a thorough examination and a deep study of the interests of the regions in general and of Scotland in particular.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bence

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) should have listed the Ministry of Social Security at Newcastle-up-Tyne and the Post Office Savings Bank in Scotland as examples of the Government's deciding where commercial enterprises should locate their offices. It is all right for Government Departments to be spread around. They are bureaucratic institutions. They do not have to compete with world industry. They do not have to meet traders and buyers. They do not have to deal with market research. I advise my right hon. Friend to reject the Amendment.

It would be disastrous if a Minister of the Crown made a decision on behalf of a vast commercial enterprise that it should establish its administrative centre on the same principle as we establish Government Departments. I dread to see the day when a commercial enterprise is run and located on the same basis as Government Departments. Furthermore, it would be disastrous if the head offices of the Steel Corporation happened to be located in the vicinity of one of the major steel plants. It is very often the experience that when one has a commercial enterprise with a number of production units it is always best to have the main administrative offices situated other than in the immediate locality of one of them. It is far better for the main commercial and administrative offices to be apart from the different production units of an industry. One could quote dozens of cases through the light engineering industry where that has been fatal.

Great concern would be caused to many people who take the wider view, rather than the parochial one of the hon. Member for Cathcart, if the administrative offices should be located on the decision of the Minister for purely party political cases and not based upon the commercial requirements of the production system or the industry with which that set-up is concerned.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Despite what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has just said, I submit to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has made a most powerful and incisive point. He has not asked for what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East implied. He has not asked for such a decision. What he has asked is that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister.

I should have thought that the Government would he bound to accept not only the wording but the spirit of the Amendment. It goes even further than my hon. Friend said it did. If it should be decided to centralise the head office of this new Corporation in London, there would be a deprivation of valuable high quality office employment from the existing centres of the companies affected. To that extent the case is even stronger.

I am sure that my hon Friend is pleased to see certain Scottish Ministers present—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

For the first time.

Mr. Gower

I wish that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs was present to stake a claim for the Principality—and, conceivably, other Ministers concerned.

I hope that the Minister will look at this matter with extreme care. It has been said to be the policy of the Government to resist the development of large office buildings in London in particular and, as my hon. Friend said, they have pressed this on private industry. It would he deplorable if what they imposed upon private industry should be resisted by a great State board of this kind.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East suggested that it would be intolerable for foreign buyers coming to this country, but I would remind him that it is far more difficult for a foreign visitor to get to the City of London than to many places which are just outside London.

Mr. Bence

I thought that I had made the point clear that those who manage the industry should decide the best location for their administrative offices and such things as their market research department. It should be a decision based on the commercial assessment which they make in the best interests of the industry.

Mr. Gower

It would be quite improper in this case. It would be far better that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister, in view of the great issues at stake, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend.

In Standing Committee, the Minister said that he was aware of the importance of this issue. He went on: I only make the point that no decision has been taken on the siting of the offices of the Corporation. Indeed, within the last two weeks, the Chairman-designate of the Corporation, who has taken this matter very seriously, has met deputations from Cardiff and Sheffield wholly and solely to discuss where the offices should be sited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2412.] I hope that that is a hopeful sign that nothing has happened since he uttered those words to change the position radically. Therefore, as I said in my opening remarks, I hope that he will accept both the wording and the spirit of the Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

Before the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) sits down, can he tell us whether there is anything at the moment which prevents the offices of the Steel Corporation being located in any part of the country, after due consideration? Secondly, may I ask him if he would transfer Steel House in part or wholly, at one fell swoop?

Mr. Gower

In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart explained that this matter was of such importance that he wanted it to be beyond doubt. I echo those words. The second point does not arise, because here we have a new concentration in a totally different form.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a rule that hon. Members are not allowed to bring lethal weapons into the House? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) are in deadly peril so long as the right hon. Gentleman goes on swinging his chain round his arm. If it slips, someone will get hurt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham)

There was a long and heated discussion on these matters during the Committee stage, and obviously one would not want to listen to all the arguments that were put forward on that occasion. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) had been a member of the Committee—and I have had the privilege of serving with him on a number of Committees—all the indications are that the temperature in the Committee when this matter was discussed would have been even higher. I find it a strange argument coming from him that the head offices of an industrial organisation should preferably be sited some distance from the works. I cannot see the advantage in doing that.

Mr. Bence

I did not suggest that. What I said was that, in the case of an industrial complex with a number of units spread round the country, the decision about siting the market research department and the administrative offices must be that of the managers of that organisation and not one imposed upon them by someone outside.

Mr. O'Malley

If I may say so, that was the second point which my hon. Friend raised, and I shall comment on that briefly in due course. It is certainly true that the decision about where the headquarters of the National Steel Corporation are to be should be that of the National Steel Corporation. It would be wrong, however, for the corporation to take that decision unilaterally, without full discussions with the Minister. In his remarks in Committee, the Minister gave no indication that he expected or desired that such full discussions should take place.

I hope that the debate today will not be parochial. It was not during the Committee stage, because the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) suggested that the headquarters ought to be in Brussels, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had an even more novel suggestion and thought that it ought to be in a caravan and move round the country.

I appreciate that this was a serious matter, and some of us did not like it being treated with such levity. Perhaps the unfortunate part of the proceedings in Committee was that, if there was any parochialism, it came from the Minister, who wanted it sited in Greenwich. It may be that that is the reason why the Minister, apparently, does not intend to reply to the debate and will leave it to his Parliamentary Secretary, because he is an interested party. We ought to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister has been making representations to the National Steel Corporation for the siting of its headquarters in Greenwich.

If I may close with one very brief remark, the advantages and disadvantages of the siting of the headquarters of the Steel Corporation either in London or in the provinces, in one of the steel centres, were adequately discussed during the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will bear the arguments in mind, and that the National Steel Corporation and the Organising Committee, in considering the matter, will bear in mind not only the arguments then put forward but also the feelings expressed on both sides during the course of them.

I believe that the decision should be taken by the National Steel Corporation in conjunction with the Minister, having listened to what the Minister has to say about overall Government policy on regional development and the moving of office employment out of London into the provinces, where often there is a pool of labour and where employment is badly needed. In addition, the Minister should not allow the offices to be in London unless it is demonstrated clearly that there are special reasons why they should be.

5.45 p.m.

I do not want to push this Amendment down my right hon. Friend's throat. I am not taking that attitude. But I hope he recognises that there are very cogent reasons why the headquarters should not be in London. I also know that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Government would be following their own regional policy if these offices were located elsewhere than in the capital.

Mr. Gower

But the Amendment would strengthen the hand of the Minister if the hon. Gentleman pushed it through.

Mr. O'Malley

That is only if the Minister is pushing the case for Greenwich. I do not know whether he is. He may feel inclined to intervene and say what the situation is. Unless there are very special reasons which can be demonstrated for having the headquarters in London, I hope that they will be sited in one of the great steel complexes.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty)

I support the Amendment. It is straightforward and on both sides of the House there is a good deal of support for the principle behind it. If there are insurmountable difficulties on the practical side, that is another matter. But there is a strong feeling in the country that we have far too much concentration of offices in London, including Government offices, and that when there is an opportunity to do something about it, as there will be in this case, advantage should be taken of that opportunity. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look at the position very carefully.

There is a good opportunity here to do something by siting these offices outside the Greater London area. I am pleased to see two Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench. I hope this is an earnest of their interest in the issue for we know that they are very busy people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. From the speeches we have heard in the debate, I cannot recall any practical reason why the Corporation should not have its offices outside the Greater London area.

I do not claim to have the practical knowledge of some hon. Members but there is, I know, a very strong feeling that this is a time when the Government should show their interest in other centres which happen to have strong claims and I put forward the claims of Scotland because Scotland would provide a practical site for these offices.

Mr. Freeson

It might be as well if I intervene now in order to give a general assurance that there is no difference of policy between us. The only issue is whether the Amendment should be accepted, and we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it could be harmful. The very reference to "head office" makes a false distinction. The point at issue here, both with regard to the steel industry and to dispersal generally, which has been discussed at some length, is where one gets the staff and where one gets the dispersal policy in operation.

The fact that one particular office is called a head office while another office is given some other name is a positive point. One can have a small head office in London while conducting a policy of dispersal. I give a general assurance that the views expressed in Committee are being taken into account very closely both by the Minister and the Organising Committee. In the thinking being given to the future of staffing and office arrangements, both the Minister and the Committee have very much in mind the idea of cutting down on the existing number of staff—2,000—established in London.

It is not for me to say today precisely what the resultant pattern will be as a result of the study being made by the Organising Committee, which will be a matter for report to the Minister, or of the talks on this and other matters going on between the Minister and the Committee. This is a very important point to take into account. The Amendment is unnecessary because we are pursuing the policy that all hon. Members have supported, but it might restrict by its terminological inclusion the very policies that hon. Members are seeking to establish.

I want to stress that there is a constant liaison between the Ministry and the Organising Committee, just as such liaison exists between the Ministry and the other nationalised industries on this matter. The important thing is to seek as far as possible to get dispersal into the right places but not to say whether the head office or the sales office, or any particular department, shall, with or without the permission of the Minister, go or not go to a certain part of the country. The important thing is to get dispersal, and I give the House an assurance that this policy is being and will continue to be pursued.

Mr. Peyton

The Government are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). He has given them a chance to convert a Clause which consisted of eyewash into something with a little meaning. He has rendered a valuable service to his constituents in Scotland and it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) did not follow him in doing so.

I believe that we can carry this preoccupation with office location too far. There seems something quite indecent about it. In Standing Committee I suggested that perhaps the best solution would be a steel caravan going around the country like a travelling circus. It would have the great advantage that it would presumably discourage the enrolment of a very large and swollen staff.

I have been meditating on this important matter and have arrived at one or two other possible suggestions. One of them I do not put forward very seriously. It is that there should be a winter palace and a summer palace. That sort of conception would be quite in harmony with the general tone of Socialist bureaucracy.

But my real suggestion is that these offices should be located in the most uncomfortable, insalubrious place in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am not prepared to name it. Perhaps very near to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East would be the answer. But this siting would really discourage a large swelling of the staff such as is only too apt to happen, despite the pious intentions of the Government whenever they introduce this kind of revolting Measure.

One should try to avoid adding to the clutter of London, which has languished under Socialist government for many years and must be one of the world's worst-governed cities in history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members opposite are sensitive on this point. I only threw it out on the spur of the moment and up they all got feeling very cross. They know how painful the truth can be to Socialist Ministers. We are always glad to have proof of the fact. I humbly return to the suggestion I made earlier—that the head office should be located in the most uncomfortable place that can be found in the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

As a London Member, I fully support the Amendment. It would be the greatest mistake to have the head office of this new Corporation cluttering up our beautiful capital city. We do not want another thousand semi-civil servants in our overcrowded city. If the head office is located in London, all the ancillary offices will be in the Home Counties.

The obvious place for the head office is probably in the North Midlands area, probably around Sheffield, which is a centre of gravity. Equally, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right. We should not have it attached to a steel works—say, on the riverside at Rotherham, perhaps on the site of the old Rotherham steel works. But when one asks the chairman of a nationalised corporation why he has to have his offices in London, he says that he has to be near Whitehall to cook up answers to the Questions. We hope that the steel industry at least will be out of politics for a time and that questions and answers can be sent on the teleprinter.

Mr. Harold Finch (Bedwellty)

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has put forward a point on behalf of the Midlands and Scotland. But a very large part of the industry is in South Wales—for instance, Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Steel Company of Wales. The steel industry is very prominent in Wales. I hope that, if anything is done, these offices will go to Wales.

Mr. Barber

During the four years when I was at the Treasury, we set in hand the movement of a number of head and other offices of a smaller character out of London into the provinces and to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred to the movement of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, a movement with which I was concerned, and I was delighted with the decision.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will know, therefore, that I am in considerable sympathy with the objective of the Amendment. But the location of the head office or any office of the National Steel Corporation should be decided on purely commercial grounds, subject only to such Government policy which is applicable to industry generally. Secondly, I believe that the same considerations should apply as are applied in the case of private enterprise.

6.0 p.m.

Furthermore, I take the point of the Parilamentary Secretary about the meaning of "head office" because, of course, one can have a comparatively small head office dealing with overseas trade and, outside, the accounts department, the statistics department, the general domestic sales, marketing, production departments, and so on. But I do not agree with him in a number of the points he made. He said that if we pass the Amendment it might restrict the policy of the Corporation. It would only do so if the Minister of Power refused permission to the Corporation against its strong wishes. All those factors are highly relevant.

I want to be brief, because there is still a considerable number of Amendments to get through and we hope to finish this business by about 7 o'clock. But there is one other overriding consideration. In practice we all know that it is inconceivable that the Corporation of a nationalised industry would ever be allowed to locate its head office in any place against the determined opposition of the Government of the day. That is a fact of life, and I have not the slightest doubt that, whether the Amendment is carried or not, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues were determined that for policy considerations the Corporation's head office should not be in a particular place, be it London or anywhere else in the United Kingdom,

the head office would not be established there.

It is therefore important to take note of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that in fact, "There is no difference on policy". That means no difference on policy between that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who moved the Amendment with his usual ability, and the policy of the Government. Therefore, the Amendment does little more than to formalise the actual position. If it gives some measure of comfort and encouragement to those people who do not believe that this Government takes a sufficiently robust view of regional policy and the location of offices, there is a lot to be said for passing it.

I have deliberately outlined the case for and against the Amendment. In the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that there is no difference in policy at all, and bearing in mind that in practice the Government of the day would be able to veto the location of the head office in a particular place, I believe that my hon. Friend would be right to press his Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 270.

Hutchison, Michael Clark Monro, Hector Sharples, Richard
Iremonger, T. L. More, Jasper Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Sinclair, Sir George
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Smith, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Stainton, Keith
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Jopling, Michael Murton, Oscar Summers, Sir Spencer
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Nabarro, Sir Gerald Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry Neave, Airey Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Kimball, Marcus Nicholls, Sir Harmar Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Teeling, Sir William
Kitson, Timothy Nott, John Temple, John M.
Knight, Mrs. Jill Onslow. Cranley Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Lambton, Viscount Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Tilney, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John Osborn, John (Hallam) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Vickers, Dame Joan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Page, Graham (Crosby) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Page, John (Harrow, W.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Wall, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert Percival, Ian Walters, Dennis
Loveys, W. H. Peyton, John Ward, Dame Irene
Lubbock, Eric Pink, R. Bonner Weatherill, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Price, David (Eastleigh) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Pym, Francis Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Quennell, Miss J. M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maddan, Martin Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Maginnis, John E. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Rees-Davies, W. R. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Marten, Neil Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Woodnutt, Mark
Maude, Angus Ridsdale, Julian Worsley, Marcus
Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Wylie, N. R.
Mawby, Ray Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Younger, Hn. George
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Royle, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Russell, Sir Ronald TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) St. John-Stevas, Norman Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. R. W. Elliott.
Miscampbell. Norman Scott, Nicholas
Abse, Leo Crawshaw, Richard Gregory, Arnold
Albu, Austen Cronin, John Grey, Charles (Durham)
Allaun, Frank (Salfort, E.) Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Afldritt, Walter Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llaneliy)
Allen, Scholefield Dalyell, Tarn Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Anderson, Donald Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Archer, Peter Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, Harold (Leek) Harper, Joseph
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Delargy, Hugh Haseldine, Norman
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Dewar, Donald Hazell, Bert
Bagier, Cordon A. T. Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Barnett, Joel Dickens, James Henig, Stanley
Beilenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Dobson, Ray Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Bence, Cyril Doig, Peter Hilton, w. S.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Driberg, Tom Hooley, Frank
Bennett, James (G'gow, Brldgeton) Dunn, James A. Horner, John
Bidwell, Sydney Dunnett, Jack Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Binns, John Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Blackburn, F. Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'cl Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Boardman, H. Eadie, Alex Hoy, James
Booth, Albert Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Boston, Terence Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur Ellis, John Hunter, Adam
Boyden, James English, Michael Hynd, John
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Ensor, David Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Bradley, Tom Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spento'gh)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Brooks, Edwin Finch, Harold Janner, Sir Barnett
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Buchan, Norman Foley, Maurice Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Cant, R. B. Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)
Carmichael, Nell Ford, Ben Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Forrester, John Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fowler, Gerry Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Chapman, Donald Fraser, John (Norwood) Judd, Frank
Coe, Denis Freeson, Reginald Kelley, Richard
Coleman, Donald Gardner, Tony Kenyon, Clifford
Concannon, J. D. Garrett, W. E. Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Conlan, Bernard Ginsburg, David Lawson, George
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Gourlay, Harry Ledger, Ron
Craddock, Ctorge (Bradford, S.) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Lestor, Miss Joan
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) O'Malley, Brian Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Oram, Albert E. Slater, Joseph
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Orbach, Maurice Small, William
Lipton, Marcus Orme, Stanley Snow, Julian
Lomas, Kenneth Oswald, Thomas Spriggs, Leslie
Loughlin, Charles Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Luard, Evan Owen, Will (Morpeth) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Paget, R. T. Stonehouse, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Palmer, Arthur Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
McCann, John Park, Trevor Swain, Thomas
MacColl, James Parker, John (Dagenham) Swingler, Stephen
MacDermot, Niall Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Symonds, J. B.
Macdonald, A. H. Pavitt, Laurence Taverne, Dick
McGuire, Michael Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
McKay, Mrs. Margaret Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thornton, Ernest
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Pentland, Norman Tinn, James
Mackie, John Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Tomney, Frank
Mackintosh, John P. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Tuck, Raphael
Maclennan, Robert Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Urwin, T. W.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Varley, Eric G.
McNamara, J. Kevin Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm Price, William (Rugby) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Probert, Arthur Wallace, George
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Randall, Harry Watkins, David (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.) Rankin, John Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mapp, Charles Redhead, Edward Weitzman, David
Marquand, David Reynolds, G. W. Wellbeloved, James
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Rhodes, Geoffrey Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mason, Roy Richard, Ivor Whitaker, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher Robertson, John (Paisley) White, Mrs. Eirene
Mellish, Robert Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Whitlock, William
Mendelson, J, J. Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Mikardo, Ian Rodgers, William (Stockton) Wilkins, W. A.
Millan, Bruce Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Rose, Paul Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mitchell, R. C. (Sth'pton, Test) Ross, Rt. Hn. William Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Molloy, William Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Moonman, Eric Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Ryan, John Winnick, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Winterbottom, R. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Sheldon, Robert Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Moyle, Roland Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Woof, Robert
Murray, Albert Shore, Peter (Stepney) Yates, Victor
Neal, Harold Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Zilliacus, K.
Norwood, Christopher Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Oakes, Gordon Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ogden, Eric Silverman, Julius (Aston) Mr. McBride and Mr. Howie.