HC Deb 25 June 1968 vol 767 cc321-43

DUTY OF NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES TO CONSIDER EFFECT OF CHANGES OF PRICE, &C, ON EXPORT TRADE

6. Where under section 2(1) or 2(3) of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, as amended by this Act, any question is referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes concerning prices for the sale of goods or charges for the performance of services, including charges for the application of any process to goods, or any awards or settlements relating to terms or conditions of employment, the Board shall consider the effects of any proposed changes in such prices "or" charges, or awards or settlements on the export trade (that is to say the provision of goods and services for persons not resident in the United Kingdom): and where the Board is directed under Section 4(1) of this Act to consider making recommendations for the reduction of prices or charges, the Board shall consider and report to the Minister or Ministers on the effects that such reduction in prices would, in its opinion, have on the export trade.— [Mr. Tom Boardman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Boardman (Leicester, South-West)

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

Mr. Speaker

I have suggested that with the new Clause we can take Amendment No. 47 in Clause 4, page 4, line 33, at end insert: (7) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to a company which exports 75 per cent. or more of its products by value.

Mr. Boardman

The Clause requires the Board, on a reference to it for prices or charges, or for awards or settlements, to consider the effect on the export trade. I am sure that it measures up to the right hon. Lady's criteria, and certainly measures up to what she said earlier about being patriotic.

The Clause is in conformity with the White Paper, which spelled out that the object of the Government's policy was the transfer of resources from home consumption to producing goods for export and import saving … The remarkable thing is that after that one passing reference to the development of our export trade no mention was made of it in the White Paper, in the Statutory Instrument which followed it, or in the Bill. It is the balance of our exports against imports which is critical and which is said to be the reason for these stern measures.

It may be that the Minister will rely on Section 9(1) of the 1966 Act. That section enables the Minister to make certain alterations if it appears that any directions made may impede the export trade, but there are certain objections to the section. First, it does not apply to awards or settlements. It applies only to orders or directions relating to prices or charges.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult for the hon. Member to address the House against a loud and sustained dialogue.

Mr. Boardman

It may be that an Order could be made against an award or settlement which was helpful to the export trade, and the Clause seeks to enable the question of exports to be taken into account when dealing with awards and settlements.

My main objection to any contention that Section 9 of the 1966 Act meets the purpose of the Clause is that it gives the Minister and not the Board, power to make the final judgment. When we discussed the promotion of exports in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said: There are times when the success of the export trade depends on the volume of domestic sales, but that is not invariably so. I know that the Committee has some reservations about this, but it is an opportunity for the Minister to use his or her judgment, as he is obliged to do. Clearly, it is variable, but when he believes that the application of prices policy domestically might impair export prospects, he must ensure that this does not happen. It is a matter of Ministerial judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 11th June, 1968, c. 658.] The whole question of pricing is one of delicate complications for management decisions. It is impossible for the Minister to make the decisions, and that is why the Clause puts the onus on the Board to consider the merits of the export case. I share the feelings expressed earlier this afternoon that the Board is incapable of making decisions which only managements are able to make because the question of costing and pricing, when balancing between export prices and home prices, cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered in the context of the overall costs of the group or company.

Many of the complications which are involved were highlighted in the Mallory Battery case, which is well known to the House. Referring to the problem of export prices, the Prices and Incomes Board Report No. 64, said, in paragraph 13: Unless the prices are uniform it is difficult to preserve the integrity of one market as against another: with different prices products from the European factories might … enter the U.S.A. through a third party… It ended: … in the light of the complexities involved … each case will need to be looked at on its merits. That, of course, is so. It is a matter of deciding whether one promotes exports on the basis of a firm home market. When a product is selling well at home, the firm has to decide whether it should accept a lower price on exports supported by the home price. There are also cases in which one is creating a new product for the overseas market.

In this case, this country should concentrate more on being market-orientated rather than production-orientated, which means looking for the product which the market requires. Then, the decision must be whether product A should carry an over-price so that the exportable product B can be developed and marketed. These are complex matters, requiring management decisions, and must not be left to the judgment of a Minister which cannot be challenged. In my constituency, where large numbers of shoes, engineering and hosiery products are exported, there is a constant and delicate balance in management between export prices and those for home market products. If a Ministry were to fix a price aribtrarily, that could distort the whole pattern of this type of export trade.

Amendment No. 47 would exclude from the power of price reduction a company whose exports were 75 per cent. or more of its total production, and this must be right. If a price reduction is imposed on such a firm, it will obviously be self-defeating, leading either to a two-tier price, lower at home than for exports, with all the problems described in the Mallory Batteries case—and if the overseas customer realises that he is paying more, that will cause problems—or to a price reduction right across the board, with the value of exports, 75 per cent. of production, being reduced. If a firm can sell 75 per cent. of its products overseas, it should surely be immune from the risk of a price reduction Order. Decisions in this matter should be based on considerations of exports.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) argued his case cogently and I support him, especially in his arguments about the Mallory Battery Company, because the heart of the new Clause are the words: the Board shall consider the effects of any proposed changes in such prices ' or ✶ charges or awards or settlements on the export trade … That is one way in which we can express our own doubts about the extent to which the Prices and Incomes Board has borne those considerations in mind in its recommendations so far.

It is important that we should take this opportunity, because the Mallory Batteries case was referred to the Board after the original price change had been accepted, on notification, by the Ministry of Technology. In other words, it was a politically motivated reference following a certain amount of perfectly understandable outcry and political pressure. The Board's Report shows how politically sensitive a body it is. This lies at the heart of so much of our opposition, that it should have so much control and authority in determining economic factors. This is why a Clause like this, which seeks to represent our feeling that export trade considerations should loom much larger is of such vital importance.

This is especially so over one reference since the Mallory case, namely, the computer charges by I.B.M. When one considers how much we wish to see this country the centre of international companies operating a price structure which will often, and of necessity, be common through that part of the world market which they hope to control, it is essential that they shall not be manoeuvred into the two-price structure through sheer political motivation. The evidence so far available in the Mallory case, must, I fear, sustain the doubts which my hon. Friend has expressed. I fully support his argument and the necessity for voting on the new Clause.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I support my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), although both found themselves in a difficulty in trying to fit the delicate economics of the price mechanism into the extraordinary political policy of this Bill. The two are, of course, flatly incompatiable. As I said earlier, it is like trying to mend a wristwatch with a crowbar. The result is. inevitablv damage to the mechanisms upon which a free market economy operates.

This problem is not immediately apparent on the home industrial scene: it is only when one begins to consider exporting that the glaring anomalies in forcing down and holding down prices by an Order under Clause 4 become evident.

We then have this curious invitation to a double standard on prices, if one considers exports. The Parliamentary Secretary went some way towards admitting this in Committee when he said that it would be possible for there to be higher prices for exports and lower prices for identical goods in the home market. The tenor of his speech on that occasion tended to encourage the belief that if one could get more money for one's goods abroad, that was all right because it would mean more foreign exchange, but that if one tried to get more for the identical goods in the home market, one might have an order issued against one.

The economics of the situation point in the opposite direction. We should be trying to keep home market prices up so that we can export more by taking a smaller margin of profit on the exported goods. This is the basis of the argument of, for example, the motor industry; that we need a strong home market before we can export. This must mean that we should have a buoyant home market to enable firms to subsidise, as it were, their export customers and so compete with other countries.

In so far as this policy is valid—and I will not go into the merits or demerits of it now—it is obvious that the Government's policy will secure the reverse, with higher prices for exports and lower prices in the home market. The result will be that the goods produced by, for example, the car industry will be sucked into the home market at a price which is too low, with the result that the profits will not be high enough to enable the motor firms to make the necessary investment in plant. The result of that will be that the industry's growth prospects will be damaged, resulting in a choking off of investment in plant, with a consumer boom at home and with prices in the home market being kept low. Yet this is precisely what the Government are trying to do. Through a political motivated policy, they are window-dressing the fact that they are keeping down prices when what they really want to do is to clobber wage increases and pretend to the world that they are being fair.

What will happen if a firm successfully exports more and manages to force up its prices in export markets? Will it be entitled to pay its workers more for that reason alone? In other words, if there was no increase in productivity, would the mere fact that a firm has doubled its income by greater export effort entitle it to pay, say, 20 per cent. more in wages? If not, the laudable policy of not wanting to put a limit on export prices will mean increased profits and share capital for exporting firms, while no benefit will go to the workers.

The conclusion which one must draw from studying the whole problem of what should be the policy governing export prices is the fundamental one that we live in a trading system consisting of a large number of countries which all operate free enterprise market economic systems. We have E.F.T.A., the Common Market and North America. If one country in the system goes in for a Statecontrolled system of prices, wages and so on, we begin to face a number of difficulties. One cannot establish a rigid, bureaucratic, centralised economic system in a country which trades with a large number of free enterprise market econimies. The difficulties are legion and one of the Socialist Government's economic difficulties about trade and exports has stemmed from the central fact that they are trying to put a pseudo-Communist system into a free enterprise world. It would be easier for us to trade with the Communist bloc if we were to adopt this type of policy than for us to continue to trade with the free world.

Be that as it may, the difficulty here is an absolute exposition of the unwisdom of trying to control one part of the market mechanism, which is prices for export, in isolation. The Parliamentary Secretary will, therefore, agree with the principle of the new Clause, even if he resists the Clause in total. If so, he is admitting the principle that one cannot satisfactorily combine a State-controlled prices and incomes policy with trading in a free economic system.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I support the new Clause. Even if the Minister cannot accept its drafting, he should accept its principle. We are dependent on an export boom and everything we do should be geared to that boom. It is of vital importance that we take note of the part of the new Clause which refers to … awards or settlements relating to terms or conditions of employment … since his right hon. Friend decided yesterday that she might put the question of Mr. Harnbro's rise to the N.B.P.I. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the firm in question has said that this rise is geared to the productivity of the company and that the individual is concerned in that the firm is concerned with exports and that, in so far as it is earning very heavy invisibles for this country, it would be reasonable that, arising out of those earnings, those who are involved in the direction of the firm should get a share of the reward.

In any event, the right hon. Lady will be in some difficulty in arguing the case against this rise if she bears in mind that the Chancellor is at present forcing directors of close companies to give themselves rises. She might, therefore, like to put my case to the N.B.P.I. since I have to give myself a rise of several hundred £s this year from my company. I did not wish to do so, but I was obliged to do so because the Chancellor told me that, as the director of a close company, I had to give myself a rise so that he could get it back, mostly by way of Income Tax and Surtax. I see the Minister shaking his head, presumably in disagreement, but I assure him that what I have said is correct and that it applies to directors in a similar position throughout the country.

Mr. Hattersley

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. My right hon. Friend would have been happy to have taxed the hon. Gentleman as if he had got the rise, even if he had not paid it to himself.

Mr. Lewis

I assure the Minister that he is wrong. He should be aware that if the money had been left in the company, as I would have wished, the Chancellor would have got a good deal less by way of tax than he gets as a result of directing me to pay myself more. The same can be said of directors not in their hundreds but in their thousands throughout the country.

If the Minister is reluctant to accept the new Clause because he does not think that we should relate these matters to exports, I remind him that, from the dividend point of view, we are apparently relating the matter to exports. His right hon. Friend has complained about Mr. Hambro, but the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has increased his dividend by 8 per cent. this year. He increased it when we had a prices and incomes policy last year and he increased it the year before that'. The hon. Member for Buckingham is a good free-enterprise industrialist who is earning a lot of money for Britain. He is increasing his business year by year and is therefore enabled to increase his dividend, which encourages his shareholders, who in turn will always provide him with more money when he wants to expand his business. He has increased his dividends this year by 8 per cent., having very large family holdings in the business, and he has had permission from the Treasury to do so. I hope the right hon. Lady will think it right and proper that as the hon. Member for Buckingham can increase his dividend by 8 per cent. and get a large increase for his family holdings, it is equally right for Mr. Hambro to increase his salary if it is justified on the ground of productivity.

8.0 p.m.

The Government are getting into a muddle because they are mixing politics with the real functions of the Ministry. The right hon. Lady is very good at politics and therefore, I suppose, in certain offices in the Government, and certainly in Opposition. From the action she has taken in the last 24 hours I think she has been a disaster as a Minister. Can anyone imagine anything worse during a go-slow than to draw the attention of people who are told they cannot have more money to a director who can have more?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Member is saying to the new Clause, which is concerned with prices.

Mr. Lewis

I accept that rebuke. If we want to increase exports, and that is the aim of the new Clause, Ministers must stop playing politics. They have to try to act as Ministers in order to get increased productivity. They not only have to act, but they have to talk on that basis.

Mr. Keith Speed (Meriden)

I find myself in some problem because, like some of my hon. Friends, I regard particular parts of this Bill dealing with price reductions as nonsensical for pricing is a more sophisticated arrangement. Nevertheless, it is our duty to try to improve the Bill, although we regard large parts of it as completely unacceptable.

On the question of exports, there are some important points on which I hope the Minister will go along with us, even at this late stage. In the 1966 Act there was reference to exports, but not to price reductions. In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went a little way to acknowledging the fact when I raised problems of export policy of companies which are dependent on the home market. There has been argument about the motor trade in which 50 per cent. of the products may be exported. That trade from time immemorial has argued that it needs to have a strong home market to act as a springboard for its exports.

From time to time some of us have been a little suspicious about certain industries which have said that they need to have a secure home market so that they can export and then, as soon as hire purchase controls or other controls have been eased, we have found that the home market gets bigger and bigger and exports fewer and fewer. I am particularly concerned, and I declare a constituency interest, with industries, such as the cycle industry, which export a large amount of their products. In their pricing and marketing policy companies engaged in a high proportion of exports have to consider their total production. They tend to have different prices for different countries to which they are sending their products and the total production for this country has to fit into the overall marketing and pricing scheme.

In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a question of Ministerial judgment. He is a politician, as I am, and from time to time political considerations might cloud his judgment. For example, there could well be a situation in which prices are rising particularly fast, we have the Index of Retail Prices and there is a clamour in the Press about "Mr. Rising Price" and so on. Then it might be convenient to have price reduction orders confirmed. If the Prices and Incomes Board were empowered to make observations and an assessment on the effect on exports of price reductions and if a company exporting more than 75 per cent. of its products by value were exempted, that would give some margin to companies— of which by definition there will be a comparatively small number engaged in exports—in their pricing and marketing policies.

This proposal would give a safeguard to a part of the Bill which will be extremely difficult to work, if it is not unworkable for these companies. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Hattersley

Whenever we debate the prices provisions of the Bill, particularly when we consider powers to impose price reductions, we have a charming interlude in which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gives us a rather simple account of the theory of perfect competition. I am sure that he remembers that Professor Galbraith described it as, "unfortunately not sanctioned by reality". On that basis we have to begin to consider the sort of proposals made by the Opposition.

The hon. Member, having drawn our attention to the delicate mechanics of the price mechanism on which a free market operates, went on to say that the free market would be unbalanced or upset if the Government imposed a system of rigid price control. We have said many times, but it is still not accepted in some places, that the Government do not claim to be mounting a system of rigid price control. My right hon. Friend has said, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that all we can seek to do, all we can do, and all that it is economically possible in practice to do, on occasions when there are individual key prices whose increases seem to us to be unjustifiable, is to examine them and maybe seek to prohibit an increase or insist on a reduction. That is not a system of tight price control. This debate must be judged against that background.

As hon. Members opposite have said, I conceded—if "conceded" is the right word—in Committee, and I am happy to concede again tonight, that there is an absolute obligation on all those operating prices and incomes policies to make sure that any decision they make and any orders they make in this policy are not detrimental to the Government's policy of encouraging exports. Two possible difficulties which hon. Members opposite fear were perhaps best set out by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) who, I thought, by implication at least drew two sorts of possible problems.

The first was the literal economic problem where a company feels that its export base in Britain must be sufficiently prosperous for it to mount and sustain the sales drives and all the other things that go into sales abroad. The second, I suppose, is a psychological problem—and this was also referred to by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury —the idea that the buyer abroad is sceptical of the value of a product if that product has had its price reduced on the home market as a result of Government intervention.

We understand exactly that the first problem exists. It was I in Committee who rashly conceded—rashly not in terms of the Committee discussion but in terms of general industrial policy—that it might be argued, and perhaps I was slightly influenced in my capacity as a Member of Parliament for the City of Birmingham, that a substantial domestic market had some relevance to the number of motor cars sold abroad. I accept that possibility, and I accept that the Government must take it into account when determining the price policy for motor cars, or for any other sector of the economy.

I do not take so readily to the argument that foreign buyers will be disenchanted at the prospect of buying British goods if they discover that the price they are paying is substantially smaller than the price that has been insisted upon in the home market by the Government. The hon. Member for Merideo talked about motor-cycle manufacturers in his constituency, all of whom have carefully graded prices which are intended to accommodate exactly what each foreign market would buy. No doubt, and I speak without experience, it would be a little more in Germany than in Italy and a little less in France than in Italy. I do not think he is arguing that buyers in Germany are put off because motorcycles are less expensive in Italy, or that buyers in France are put off because they are a little more expensive in the other two countries.

If there is to be an exporting prices policy, with a price geared to each individual national market, a price which the exporter has calculated is what the market can bear, then there will be distinctions in prices from market to market, and I cannot believe that the export effort will be undermined if one of those distinctions is between the home market and individual foreign markets. Indeed, such distinctions clearly already exist, not by Government policy but by volume of sale abroad, transport costs and many other things.

It is a very sophisticated foreign buyer who says that the Meriden motorcycles —I hasten to tell the people in Meriden that I hypothesise wildly; I have no reason to assume this would be the case —were judged by the Government and by the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be 4s. 6d. over-priced and, since they have been reduced by that amount in Birmingham, they will not be bought in Rome, Berlin and Paris unless they are reduced by a similar amount. I do not believe that will operate, and I suspect by the look on his face that the hon. Member does not think that will operate either.

What he believes, and I agree with him entirely, is that in deciding our prices policy, and when we examine prices with a view to reducing them, we must take into account the export requirements. When I say "we must", I mean not only in common sense and reasonableness, but I remind the House that, under the powers by which the Prices and Incomes policy is operated, we are required statutorily to take that into account.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) warned the House that I would refer to Section 4(1) of the 1966 Act, by which the current White Paper on Prices and Incomes policy is incorporated into the parent Act as a Schedule of criteria which must be taken into account when decisions are arrived at by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. His warning was absolutely right. That White Paper refers to the overriding need to stimulate exports. The National Board for Prices and Incomes in making its decisions must statutorily take that White Paper into account, and the White Paper makes it absolutely clear that its judgments must in some ways be guided by that consideration.

8.15 p.m.

Similarly, with the First Schedule to the 1968 Act, which lists the provisions in previous Acts which we must take into account when considering the possibilities of price reduction and the warning of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West, enables me to remind the House that Section 9(1) of the 1966 Act imposes an additional obligation on my right hon. Friend. If we assume, and I do not assume it for one moment, that the National Board for Prices and Incomes has ignored this requirement to examine all prices and all potential reductions in the light of the White Paper, and has therefore made an Order for a price reduction which is in flagrant breach of that undertaking and disregards the export implications, then my right hon. Friend is required to exclude from a prices Order, as she sees appropriate, anything that might be regarded as detrimental to the export trade.

When I said in Committee that this was to a degree a subjective decision, and something which must be done by her, I thought and I hoped that I was making a point that was no more than the semantic obvious, that if she is required to take into account all the things which seem to her appropriate for the encouragement of exports, I was doing no more than concede that what appears to be appropriate might vary from individual to individual. All that I could assure the Committee, and all that I can assure the House today, is that my right hon. Friend will operate that system according to her judgment and according to her ability. I do not believe that any possible price reductions which could be recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and which could be confirmed by way of an Order debated in the House, could be to the detriment of our export trade. We are required by Statute to take that into account. We are required by obligations inherent in the White Paper to make allowance for these things.

Nothing could be more arbitrary than an Amendment which seeks to exclude firms which have an export trade amounting to 75 per cent. of their turnover. From time to time my right hon. Friends and I are chided for our lack of industrial experience, but my industrial experience leads me to believe that it is not possible to point to a firm or group of firms who through time have 75 per cent. of their business going to export. Sometimes it may be 74 per cent.; sometimes it may be 77 per cent. How one could make that calculation, how one could possibly say that this firm is above the 75 per cent. level and that firm is just below, I do not know.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

It springs to mind at once that there are many commercial firms, as opposed to manufacturing firms, to whom this must apply, firms who concentrate entirely on export business.

Mr. Hattersley

Were I to make that point in another context, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say to me that it is not enough to say that there are some firms we can describe in this way, since this requires the exercise of Ministerial judgment. He would say what he is worried about is how the Minister makes judgments about those firms around the margin. That is what I too am worried about in that context. I do not believe that the Minister could make that judgment, and I hope that the House will not try to impose that judgment upon us. I assure the House that we are most conscious of the export obligations; the White Paper and the Bill require us to remain conscious of them and that consciousness will continue.

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

The hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his answer said that it was wrong for my hon. Friends to say that a rigid system of price control was being imposed. My first observation is that obviously the Government are taking the power to impose a system of rigid price control.

He then went on to say, and he said also in another context, that the Government would act wisely and do this and that according to the best principles. He must realise that we have no confidence in the Government. We do not believe them when they say they have the intention to do this or that. If they mean it at the time they alter their intention within a very short time. Therefore, since we cannot rely upon their intentions, we submit that we need an Amendment which fetters their discretion.

The arguments on the Amendment have drawn attention to the fact that there may be two price structures. There may be a reduction of price ordered by the Government, and there may be a higher export price.

In the case of Mallory Batteries, it was the company trying to increase its price. The National Board for Prices and Incomes said that it did not think that the increase should take place and that, if there was a difference between the home price not raised and the export price raised, one of the ways of taking care of that was by putting on a conditional restriction.

That is a very naive suggestion. To put on a restriction to customers in the United Kingdom that they shall not resell the product abroad at a higher price and cut into the suppliers' own market is quite unreal. It shows that, apart from commercial considerations, by ordering a price reduction which brings the home price below the export price, some harm to the export trade must ensue.

As the National Board for Prices and Incomes adopted that view, when the right hon. Lady takes into account, as statutorily she must, the damage or otherwise to the export trade, we do not believe that she will apply the right principles. All that the Statute says is that she shall do her best according to her own subjective judgment. If she thinks that restrictive conditions imposed on the customers of a United Kingdom supplier will achieve the object of keeping the distinction between the home and the export prices, she is very much mistaken. We do not believe that she will use the right criteria when she performs her statutory duty of trying to protect the export market, and we do not believe that the intention of the Government will remain as it is today. It will change overnight.

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

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

(seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it in order for a Teller on the Government side, in the Aye Lobby, to prevent hon Members from getting out of the Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I must inquire into this. I am unaware of the circumstances. I will inquire into the matter.

Mr. Wells

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have you now made your inquiries?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have been having inquiries made. There was some difficulty because the Division was proceeding. The reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is that, I understand the Tellers did put their arms across the door but it was to prevent any difficulties arising over counting and was merely to facilitate the flow so that counting could be carried through effectively. I am satisfied that no hon. Member was prevented from coming out of the Lobby on that account. Therefore, I take the Division to be perfectly regular.

Division No. 240.] AYES [8.22 p.m.
Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Eden, Sir John Kaberry, sir Donald
Astor, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kerby, Capt. Henry
Awdry, Daniel Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Kershaw, Anthony
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Emery, Peter Kimball, Marcus
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Errington, Sir Eric King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Balniel, Lord Eyre, Reginald Kirk, Peter
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Farr, John Kitson, Timothy
Batsford, Brian Fisher, Nigel Knight, Mrs. Jill
Bell, Ronald Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lane, David
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Fortescue, Tim Langford-Holt, Sir John
Berry, Hn. Anthony Foster, Sir John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Biffen, John Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'C'dfield)
Biggs-Davison, John Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Gibson-Watt, David Lloyd, Rt. Hn. selwyn (Wirral)
Black, Sir Cyril Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Longden, Gilbert
Blaker, Peter Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Loveys, W. H.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Glover, Sir Douglas Lubbock, Eric
Body, Richard Glyn, Sir Richard McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bossom, Sir Clive Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. MacArthur, Ian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Goodhart, Philip Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Braine, Bernard Goodhew, Victor Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brewis, John Gower, Raymond Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Brinton, Sir Tatton Grant, Anthony McMaster, Stanley
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grant-Ferris, R. Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Gresham Cooke, R. Maddan, Martin
Bryan, Paul Grieve, Percy Maginnis, John E.
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Marten, Neil
Bullus, Sir Eric Gurden, Harold Maude, Angus
Burden, F. A. Hall, John (Wycombe) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mawby, Ray
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &Nairn) Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Maxwell-Hyslop R. J.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Channon, H. P. G. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Mills, Peter(Torrington)
Chichester-Clark, R. Harrison, Brian (Ma'don) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Clark, Henry Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Miscampbell, Norman
Clegg, Walter Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooke, Robert Hastings, Stephen Monro, Hector
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hay, John Mortgomery, Fergus
Cordle, John Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Corfield, F. V. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Costain, A. P. Heseltine, Michael Mott-Radclytfe, Sir Charles
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Higgins, Terence L. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Hiley, Joseph Murton, Oscar
Crouch, David Hill, J. E. B. Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Crowder, F. P. Hirst, Geoffrey Neave, Airey
Cunningham, Sir Knox Holland, Philip Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Currie, G. B. H. Hornby, Richard Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dalkeith, Earl of Howell, David (Guildford) Nott, John
Dance, James Hunt, John Onslow, Cranley
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hutchison, Michael Clark Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Osborn, John (Hailam)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, Charles Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Pardoe, John
Drayson, G. B. Jopling, Michael Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Wells

(seated and covered): No hon. Member was prevented from coming out because I happened to be stronger than the hon. Member concerned. But is it not disgraceful that an hon. Member on the Government side should use physical force to restrain an hon. Member on the Opposition side from coming out of the Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman did succeed in getting out. I understand that no one was prevented from getting out. Therefore the Division must stand.

The House divided: Ayes 235 Noes 307.

Peel, John Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)
Percival, Ian Scott, Nicholas Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Peyton, John Scott-Hopkins, James Wall, Patrick
Pike, Miss Mervvn Sharples, Richard Walters, Dennis
Pink, R. Bonner Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh A Whitby) Ward, Dame Irene
Pounder, Rafton Silvester, Frederick Weatherill, Bernard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Smith, Dudley (W'wick A L'mington) Webster, David
Price, David (Eastleigh) Smith, John (London & W'minster) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Prior, J. M. L. Speed, Keith Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pym, Francis Stainton, Keith Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Quenneil, Miss J. M. Stodart, Anthony Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.(Ripon) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. sir Peter Summers, Sir Spencer Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R. Tapsell, Peter Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart) Woodnutt, Mark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Teeling, Sir William Worsley, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian Temple, John M. Wylie, N. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Younger, Hn. George
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Tilney, John
Royle, Anthony Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Russell, Sir Ronald van Straubenzee, W. R. Mr. Jasper More and
St. John Stevas, Norman Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
NOES
Abse, Leo Davidson, Arthur (Accrrington) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Albu, Austen Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Heffer, Eric S.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Henig, Stanley
Alldritt, Walter Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Herblson, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Allen, Scholefield Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hilton, W. S.
Anderson, Donald de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Archer, Peter Delargy, Hugh Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dell, Edmund Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Bacon, Rt, Hn. Alice Dempsey, James Howed, Denis (Small Heath)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dewar, Donald Howie, W.
Barnes, Michael Dickens, James Hoy, James
Barnett, Joel Dobson, Ray Huckfield, Leslie
Baxter, William Doig, Peter Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Beaney, Alan Driberg, Tom Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Bence, Cyril Dunnett, Jack Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hunter, Adam
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th A C'b'e) Hynd, John
Bidwell, Sydney Eadie, Alex Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Binns, John Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Bishop, E. S. Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Blackburn, F. Ellic, John Janner, Sir Barnett
Blenkinsop, Arthur English, Michael Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Ennals, David Jeger, George (Goole)
Booth, Albert Ensor, David Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras,S.)
Boston, Terence Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Boyden, James Fernyhough, E. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Braddock, Mrs E. M. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Bradley, Tom Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bray Dr Jeremy Foley, Maurice Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Brooks Edwin Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Ford, Ben Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Forrester, John Judd, Frank
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Fowler, Gerry Kelly, Richard
Brown, R. W.(Shoreditch &F'burn) Fraser, John (Norwood) Kenyon, Clifford
Buchan, Norman Freeson, Reginald Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Galpem, Sir Myer Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C) Gardner, Tony Lawson, George
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Garrett, W. E. Leadbitter, Ted
Butler Mr,. Joyce (Wood Green) Garrett, W.E. Leadbitter, Ted
Ginsburg, David Ledger, Ron
Cant, R. B. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Carmichael, Neil Gourlay, Harry Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Lee, John (Reading)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lestor, Miss Joan
Chapman, Donald Cray, Charles (Durham) Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Cm, Denis Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Lever, L. M. (Ardwiok)
Coleman, Donald Griffiths, Eddie Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Concannon, J. D. Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Conlan, Bernard Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Lomas, Kenneth
Corbet, Mrs, Freda Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Loughlin, Charles
Craddock, Ceorge (Bradford, S.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Luard, Evan
Crawshaw, Richard Hamling, William Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Cronin, John Hannan, William Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith McBride, Neil
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Haseldine, Norman McCann, John
Daly en, Tarn Hattersley, Roy MacColl, James
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hazeil, Bert MacDermot, Niall
Macdonald, A. H. Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Small, William
McGuire, Michael Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Snow Julian
McKay, Mrs. Margaret Palmer, Arthur Spriggs, Leslie
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Pannell, Bt. Hn. Charles Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mackie, John Park, Trevor Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mackintosh, John p. Parker, John (Dagenham) Strauss, Bt. Hn. G. B.
Maclennan, Robert Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Swingler, Stephen
McNamara, J. Kevin Pavitt, Laurence Symonds, J. B.
MacPherson, Malcolm Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Taverne, Dick
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Pentland, Norman Thornton, Ernest
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Tinn, James
Manuel, Archie Prentice, Rt. Hn. B. E. Tuck, Raphael
Marks, Kenneth Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Urwin, T. W.
Marquand, David Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Varley, Eric G.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Price, William (Rugby) Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Probert, Arthur Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Maxwell, Robert Randall, Harry Wallace, George
Mayhew, Christopher Rankin, John Watkins, David (Consett)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Rees, Merlyn Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mendelson, J. J. Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Weitzman, David
Mikardo, Ian Rhodes, Geoffrey Wellbeloved, James
Millan, Bruce Richard, Ivor Wells, William (Wasall, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Whitaker, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy White, Mrs. Eirone
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Whitlock, William
Molloy, William Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilkins, W. A.
Moorman, Eric Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Roebuck, Roy Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Morris, John (Aberavon) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Moyle, Roland Rose, Paul Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Ross, Rt. Hn. William Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Murray, Albert Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Neal, Harold Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Newens, Stan Sheldon, Robert Winnick, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Woof, Robert
Oakes, Gordon Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) Wyatt, Woodrow
Ogden, Eric Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Yates, Victor
O'Malley, Brian Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Oram, Albert E. Silverman, Julius (Aston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Orme, Stanley Skeffington, Arthur Mr. Joseph Harper and
Oswald, Thomas Slater, Joseph Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Forward to