HC Deb 26 June 1968 vol 767 cc572-92

POWER TO REQUIRE REDUCTION OF PRICES OR CHARGES

Mr. Emery

I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 16, leave out ' or 2(3)'.

This is probably the shortest Amendment on the Notice Paper, but as in my last speech I talked about things in the Bill being incomprehensible, the use of two figures and two brackets needs a certain amount of explanation.

Basically, what we are seeking to do is to prevent a standing reference being made to the Prices and Incomes Board in respect of price reductions. This is the first Amendment to be tabled on Report to deal with price reductions, and it must be realised that by the Bill the Government are introducing a new concept into their policy. They are taking powers to require reductions in prices or charges. We believe that this is neither right nor beneficial. We consider that one or two things must be limited, but by the Amendment we are seeking to ensure that the powers given in the 1966 Act to allow a running or continuous review to be ordered do not apply to price reductions.

If that power is allowed to remain, any firm, or manufacturing company, or retailer, or organisation selling anything, or charging any price for services or goods will be in a perpetual quandary about the prices which may be charged, or which will be permitted to be charged, if a reference has been made, or could be made, or is being considered.

The power to order the Board to keep specified cases under continuous review has been used. This power is contained in Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act, but as usual the words are pretty imprecise, and one does not quite realise what powers are contained therein.

Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act says: The Minister or Ministers referring any question to the Board under this section may at any time by a further reference to the Board vary or withdraw that question. That power has been interpreted to allow the Board to have referred to it under the continuous review procedure the pay of the Armed Forces and the remuneration of university teachers.

These references are to cases in which the power has already been used by the Government, and this power would be reflected in the Clause dealing with a reduction in prices. How can the Government suggest that a pricing review of a firm or, more likely, an industry, should be carried out by any body? Is it right that the price structure of any company should be kept under perpetual review? Does not this conjure up the concept of a company's having to operate under a permanent punitive threat?

I used that description yesterday, and the Under-Secretary did not like it. It is a punitive threat. The Government can take action to order a company to reduce its prices. It has been said that such a price reduction could so affect the company to make it go out of business. The Government are now taking power permanently and continuously to keep under review—by reference to the Board —the exact price structure under which any company or industry may operate.

It is clear that if this is to be brought about the membership of the Board will have to be greatly increased. Any continuous or running review—especially in regard to prices—will greatly extend the work and operation of the Board. Two specific cases have recently been affected —the pay of the Armed Forces and of teachers. This subsection gives the Board power to keep any question under continuous review. That is why we move the Amendment.

In relation to Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act, the London Gazette, in November, 1967—and this is indicative of the comprehensive way in which the Government are using the powers—said that the Government had indicated to the Board that it shall from time to time, as the Board thinks fit, report to the Minister or Ministers giving any instruction under this Section on the matters to which the instruction relates; and the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State and any other Minister acting jointly, may at any time require the Board to make …a report on those matters, or on any question relating to them. That is the second major argument for deleting this provision. It is quite wrong to delegate executive powers to a completely independent body so that it can standardise a pricing policy for industry. I want to know from the Government the criteria on which they base the selection of cases to be kept under continuous review. Are the selected cases to be the subject of a particular type of restraint? Are contentious or vulnerable cases to be chosen, or is it to be a matter of victimisation in the use of these powers? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman opposite did not like my use of the word "victimisation". The sort of victimisation we are concerned with is, for example, an individual who receives an extra £150 a year after tax having his salary at least investigated. Suggestions that that would never be done by the Government have been disproved by the action which has been taken this week.

What are to be the criteria for a running reference? Is the Board to be used as a makeshift or a substitute for regular price review machinery? This is perhaps going a little far—

Mr. Speaker

We are not discussing the Clause, we are descussing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. Emery

I realise this, Mr. Speaker, only too well. If the Government can tell me what are the criteria and what are their reasons for wishing to keep the powers, the Amendment may not be necessary. We have not been told by the Government what are the criteria. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in what manner he wishes to operate this power, and on what criteria—

Mr. Speaker

It is the power under Section 2(3) of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, only that power, not the rest.

Mr. Emery

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it has been under that power that the permanent review has been used. I agree with you completely, Mr. Speaker, that on reading those words one is not conscious that that is the power that is being used, and this is why we wish to have it deleted. If there is some other way by which the power to keep the running review can be deleted perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will inform me so that we can in another place continue the Amendment. I am informed that this Amendment will do exactly what we want it to do. It would be quite wrong for the Government to have power to make the type of references that they have made on wages and salaries in relation to a reduction of prices. It is this part of the Clause which is so relevant. If there can be a running review on a matter of price reduction—

Mr. Speaker

May I assist the hon. Gentleman? The hon. Gentleman wishes to cut out Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, which reads: The Minister or Ministers referring any question to the Board under this Section may at any time by a further reference to the Board vary or withdraw that question. This is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to cut out by his Amendment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I think it ought to be put on the record that we are not accustomed to having someone in the Chair who follows in such detail the arguments which are being put.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) can look after himself.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Emery

May I, then, turn to the review of power which we are also allowing under this, referring to the alteration after the reference to the Board. It has been under the further reference procedure that the Government have been able, if necessary, to alter any original reference. This is not what we want. We believe—it was helpful of you, Mr. Speaker, to remind me—that it is up to the Government to make it clear in their original reference how the Board should operate. Therefore, the Government should not be able to vary price reductions. As a company moves from one specific product, it may wish to move the unit costs which are unprofitable on that line to another. That might have to be referred, leading to a continuous reference. The Government should make up their minds at the start.

Therefore, as regards the running review and the alterations, there is no need for these price reduction powers. We disagree with the whole Clause, but we think that it would be fairer to industry with the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

The running review has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

Mr. Harold Walker

I became convinced towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that he was confusing Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act with Section 3(2), which deals with standing references to the Board. As you said, Mr. Speaker, Section 2(3) gives the Minister power to vary or revoke a reference to the Board. Nothing in it deals with standing references. Nor could Clause 4 be conceived as giving the Minister any power to make further standing references. I say firmly, clearly and categorically that there is nothing in Clause 4 which would permit such a standing reference.

The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that, if a varying reference, that is, the one referred to in Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, asked the Board to consider the scope for price reductions there could not be added to it a direction or under the Clause to make recommendations which could be given binding force by an Order under the Clause. However, this would not prevent my right hon. Friend from making a subsequent new reference which would have the same effect. Nothing in the Amendment would prevent my right hon. Friend from exercising the powers conferred by Section 2(1) of the 1966 Act to withdraw an existing reference, reframe it and re-submit it.

It is likely that if it were necessary for us to make a new reference containing the principles embodied in Clause 4, that is, to consider whether the Board should quantify possible reductions in price, with a view to my right hon. Friend subsequently making an Order, this is the procedure which would be adopted, rather than the powers which the Amendment seeks to delete, the powers to make a varying or revoking Order.

Mr. Ridley

In that event, would the hon. Gentleman explain why Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act need be in the Bill?

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks. I assure him that I will make the position abundantly clear.

I explained that if circumstances arose and if we thought it necessary, we might desire for there to be a broadening of a reference to the Board. Rather than withdraw the existing reference, we could use the powers under that Section and re-frame the reference. Perhaps new circumstances arose or new facts came before the Government which would result in the Government wanting to vary a reference before the Board. It is for this admittedly unlikely situation that we wish to retain, at the beginning of the Clause, Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act. That is why the Clause begins with the words: Where under section 2(1) or 2(3) of the Prices and Incomes Act any question is referred to the "— Board— …the Minister … may include in the reference a direction to the Board … It is to maintain conformity that we wish to retain this provision.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Would the hon. Gentleman give an example, even a hypothetical one, of how this provision would be used? This is an extremely intricate matter and we want to get it clear. I confess that I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Walker

The phraseology used in the Clause is that used throughout the legislation. The same words appear in the previous Acts and it is to ensure consistency that we are including the words in the Bill. Circumstances could arise when this provision would be needed in relation to a reference to the Board.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Would the hon. Gentleman give an example?

Mr. Walker

The Board might be considering boots and shoes, where there was not contained in the reference a direction which my right hon. Friend cold give as a result of the 1966 provision being in the Clause. These powers are now contained in the Clause. We may, on the basis of information received after a reference had been made, require scope for a quantified price reduction to occur. There is, therefore, a prima facie case for saying that this power should be in the Clause. The power contained in it would enable my right hon. Friend to vary a reference to the Board to include consideration of the quantified scope for a price reduction, and the Board could take the matter into account if there was such scope, and it could then be embodied in its subsequent report. I trust that that is clear.

Mr. Burden

Yes, as clear as mud.

Mr. Walker

I have done my best to make the position clear. I trust that I have explained why the Amendment is unacceptable to the Government.

Mr. R. Carr

I have done my best to follow the Under-Secretary's reply. Perhaps we are getting a little tired and perhaps that is why it is not so easy for us to take in these intricate matters. One of our troubles with the Bill is that it is meant to apply to ordinary people throughout the country. Even hon. Members—with the exception of you, Mr. Speaker—find it difficult to understand what the Bill is and is not saying.

We feared that the inclusion of Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act in the Clause would give the Government ways and means of imposing the continuous review procedure on the examination of prices in relation to the power to reduce prices. If that had been so we would have regarded it as extremely damaging. If we have misunderstood that I shall be very glad to be told so, but, having heard the Under-Secretary's reply, I am not even now quite clear. Can he say that the inclusion of Section 2(3) in this Clause will not be used by the Government to impose a continuous review procedure in relation to powers to reduce prices? If we could be sure about that we might feel more at rest than we do at the moment.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil) rose—

Mr. Speaker

I must warn hon. Members that the Chair understands the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I required that warning, because I was about to thank the Undersecretary for the clarity with which he explained that Section 3(4) of the 1966 Act was more vicious than Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act.

That being the case, the point with which we are here concerned is I believe comparatively trivial. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the subsection with the following subsection is, as he pointed out in polite language, far more vicious and offensive than the one with which we are here concerned. I do not understand from the Under-Secretary's answer why that is necessary.

The hon. Gentleman explained in the most crystal clear terms which we expect of some Ministers and which he was good enough to provide, that the Minister had all the powers she wanted under Section 2(1). Why have these powers under Section 2(3)? I do not understand this at all. I see no objection whatever to this Government withdrawing anything they have done. So far as I am concerned they are entirely welcome to do so. The withdrawal of any reference at any time, and almost any action they have ever taken, would be totally acceptable.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is an interesting statement, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

I am much obliged, but I think that I have been following precedent in the debate. I want only to query the word "vary". Why when the Under-Secretary explained so clearly that it is not necessary because the Minister can do all she wants to do under Section 2(1), should she take these powers to vary it? I do not think the Government understand the nuisance they can cause to many people by such constant variations. It is very much to be preferred that they should withdraw the whole reference, be seen to do so publicly and to go as near as ever they do to making an apology rather than to put in little variations here and there to amend their previous meaning.

I want to hear the Under-Secretary justify this power, I believe that, line by line, word by word, this Bill needs to be justified in detail, because I regard its general purpose as tyrannical. I dare say that Ministers get tired of these arguments, but if they produce these abominations in statutory form they must explain every single word and justify it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is only one single word to be justified at the moment.

Mr. Peyton

I think, Sir, if I may say so, that you are rather hot in pursuit tonight. I am after that word, because we have had a clear explanation from the Under-Secretary that it is not necessary and that the whole thing can be done under Section 2(1). Why does he insist that Section 2(3) is necessary?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Biffen

I hope that I understand the Amendment and will be able to keep in order, although I realise that that is a rather heroic premise on which to proceed when dealing with this kind of legislation.

As I understand, there is a distinction between keeping something under continuous review and allowing a Minister to vary a reference. As the Under-Secretary reasonably pointed out, the continuous review provision arises from Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind, when he was thinking in those terms, the continuous review which the Board now conducts, for example, of Service pay, or, I think I am right in saying, of the pay of certain academic professions.

What we are concerned with here, and I believe rightly and deliberately concerned with, is not that the Board may have powers of a continuous review which it itself will operate, but that a reference to the Board made by the Government may, in the light of subsequent information, be varied; that, the reference once having been made, the Government will then take a second thought and say that they wish the reference to be varied in respect of price reductions. This is what the Amendment is about. The Under-Secretary nods; so he and I are in agreement, and we both seem to be in order.

I take the argument one stage further. The varying of the reference, so the Under-Secretary thinks, might be as a result of quantified information. I think these were his words—that, having once made a reference to the Board in relation to a suggested price reduction, further information might become available which would encourage the Government to wish to vary that reference. We are invited to believe that this will be based upon a sound, cool, detached, non-political, economic assessment of the evidence which is subsequently available. We cannot believe this. It strains our credulity.

We think of a company whose pricing policy has been referred under the legislation now proposed. We then think of the chairman of that company making some fairly stringent comments in his annual statement on the policy of the Government. He might even compare the Prime Minister to Lord North, without being disrespectful to Lord North. We might even find that there was some reference in the accounts, and is now by law required—I do not object to this— to the fact that the company's subscription to the Liberal Party, or to the Conservative Party, or to the Scottish Nationalist Party, had been increased.

It is just possible that, if these circumstances arose, the Government might wish to vary the reference which was already before the Board in relation to the pricing policies of that company. [An HON. MEMBER: "An unworthy suggestion."] I agree that this is an unworthy suggestion. I could be led to this conclusion only by what I am sure is the totally false Press reporting of the incident concerning Mr. Jocelyn Hambro. That is the only thing which could lead me to believe that such thoughts ever occurred to the Govern- ment; otherwise, I would be entirely convinced by the Under-Secretary's argument.

Until the Under-Secretary can convince this side of the House—and, I suspect, even some hon. Members opposite—that the references to the Board are entirely detached, unconnected in any sense with political motivation, we are bound to be suspicious of any power which enables the Government to take second thoughts once a reference has already been made to the Board, particularly in terms of price reductions, where the Government might even enjoy the publicity and the inference that they are conducting a war against certain selected industrial companies, even if it were part of the process of maintaining some sort of spurious cohesion within their own ranks.

Those are the thoughts behind the Amendment. It is a serious Amendment which requires a much more detailed and convincing answer than the Undersecretary has so far presented to the House.

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

Under Section 2 of the 1966 Act, two types of reference are allowed. There is the original reference, and then under subsection (3) there is power to vary the reference by adding to or varying the question. The Amendment would exclude the reference to Section 2(3) from Clause 4 of the present Bill. We propose that exclusion because, if a question is referred to the Board and there is no reference in it to the reduction of prices, it is very unwise that the Government should have power, as they would have under Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, to vary the question by including a reference to reduction of prices.

There is a practical reason for not allowing the Government to have that power. A question is referred to the Board—about boots and shoes, for example—and in the original question there is no hint of reduction of prices. The Board makes inquiry. It usually does so by appointing a sub-committee, which then meets the manufacturer, goes through the books, and asks questions. It would be most unwise if, in the middle of that, the Minister could vary the question by adding a reference to the reduction of prices.

The scope of the original question to the Board deals with a possible increase in prices. In our view, if the Minister wants to use Clause 4 to put a question about the reduction of prices, he should do so in the original submission to the Board and not at a later stage. When I say "a later stage", I mean at any stage, for Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act would allow it to be done at any stage. After months of inquiry, the Minister could suddenly add a question to the Board asking it to look into the possibility of reduction of prices as well. This would be unfair. It would put an extra burden on the industry, a burden which it should not be asked to bear, when the original question excluded any reference to price reduction.

Mr. Ridley

When the Under-Secretary first answered this debate, I thought that he took a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but my present thought is that we have unearthed a really serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) pointed out where the trail lay, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir J. Foster) has chased the quarry out into the open.

The Government have two separate powers to make references. One is power to make a reference to investigate whether a price should be allowed to rise. The other is power under Clause 4 to investigate whether a price should be ordered to go down. It is a peculiar feature of this legislation that the Prices and Incomes Board is not allowed to investigate of its own volition whether a price should be reduced; it can be done only if the Government refer the question specifically to it.

If the first type of reference, that dealing with a price increase, is used to elicit otherwise confidential information, it enables the second type of reference to be made. No Government can know the facts and figures behind a price until they can examine the confidential books. Therefore, the technique is beginning to emerge quite clearly. An application for a price increase will be automatically referred to the Board, which will have access to the company's books. It will be able to look at the profits and margins and make a few spurious and ill-formed judgments without having any idea about how commerce operates, about investments and tax liabilities and all sorts of complications to do with liquidity, and so on. It will be able to say that there is a margin of 30 per cent., or whatever it may be, on basic factory costs, and will tell the Government, "Go ahead on boots and shoes".

Under the offending Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act the Government can vary an order. It can tell the Board, "Do not only look into whether there should be a price increase, but whether you can force it down. This is a most obnoxious power to give a Government. If they want to take a power to reduce prices —and we on this side of the House are totally against that—let them make their reference in the first place. Let them say, "We think that Mallory Batteries or X, Y and Z are charging too much. Investigate and see if you can reduce their prices". To use the back door, to say that they will have a second swipe at a company goes beyond the bounds of what is tolerable.

The whole legislation is ridiculous. To make it into a sort of Star Chamber system as well, with a built in system of heads you lose and tails I win is abominable.

I hope that the Under-Secretary, who answered the Amendment with the greatest candour but released this fox from its earth, will have the grace to say that he does not need this power. He admitted earlier that he could think of no conceivable occasion when it would have to be used. He was unable to quote a convincing example. Therefore, the honourable thing is to accept the Amendment, which will at least make sure that the original reference is confined to the purpose for which it was made, and will not give the Government the power to change references in midstream. I hope very much that he will respond to this invitation.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

It has taken the characteristic lucidity of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to cast some light on the impenetrable obscurity of the question.

I should like to take up two points, the first of which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). First, in a way the power is typical of a theme to which we have returned, and shall be returning, again and again in the Bill—the tendency of the Government to wish to change the rules in the middle of a negotiation or exchange of views between them and the citizen.

This is a typical example, giving the Minister opportunity to vary—and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was very right to emphasise the word "vary"—the conditions under which the citizen, the firm or manager are being judged in this case, and judged is the word. It is objectionable, first, because it is changing the rules, and without any indication of the criteria by what the change should be made.

We do not know by what criteria the variation should be established, on what basis a variation will be allowed. Will it be simply prompted by the discovery of information about the company's pricing policy, the whim and mood of the Minister concerned, or occur because Sunday falls on a different day of the month? The variation is totally arbitrary, and criteria are totally unestablished.

This is one example of changing rules —changing the very game—in the midst of a confrontation between the State and an individual, all too familiar not merely in the Bill but the whole range of legislation being thrust down our throats by the Government.

10.45 p.m.

Secondly, by varying the Order from possibly a demand that a price should be held to a demand that there should be a price reduction, the Minister may have a paralysing effect on a company's pricing policy. A modern company or corporation may have a vast mix of products and prices which it may want to vary for all kinds of internal reasons—production reasons, work process reasons, and so on—from week to week or from month to month.

If, under this power, the Minister is empowered to vary the Order and to demand that a standstill on a price increase should become a price reduction, this raises another theme to which we shall return, and that is that this power, like the others, is anti-innovation. It places on firms strictures, rules and disciplines which make it harder for a lively management to introduce new processes, price patterns and wage structures and create the kind of investment and high productivity about which the First Secretary talks so often.

This is typical of the Government's habit of changing the rules in the middle, and it is another additive to the theme of anti-innovation to which the Government are so dedicated.

Mr. Speaker

The Question is—

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, were about to put the Question without our having had a reply from the Minister.

Mr. Harold Walker

By leave of the House, may I briefly reply—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need leave.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. May I say that he is making a mountain out of a molehill.

There is nothing original in referring in the opening line of the Clause to the provisions of Sections 2(1) and 2(3) of the 1966 Act. In order to maintain uniformity and consistency in the legislation, we have used the same provisions again. May I point out to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that I referred to a quantified price reduction where the Board might consider there was scope for this. Perhaps a better example would be to choose a reference to the Board covering a range of manufactured consumer goods, such as breakfast foods, to which we might decide subsequently to add something which had been omitted, like porage. We would require the power to vary for that reason.

I hoped that I made it clear that we would not normally seek to use this power, but we needed to retain it because circumstances might arise—[Interruption.] I find it difficult to reply to the debate against the comments of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The power to vary would be rarely used. We would seek, as has been requested, to frame the reference so as to contain any directions which may be required.

The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and the hon. Member for Oswestry stressed that it was unwise to give the Government power to vary, imputing to us some sinister motive. But, in any case, the result they seek would not be achieved by the Amendment. I repeat that the Government would still be left with the powers contained in Section 2 of the 1966 Act to withdraw a reference, reframe it and re-submit it to the Board. But I assure hon. Members that there is nothing sinister or impure in our motive, which is simply to maintain uniformity and consistency with the words used throughout this legislation.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

But surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that, without these new powers, it would be much more difficult for the Government. It is the job of the Opposition, when they fear possible consequences, to make a thing more difficult for the Government to do. This Amendment would make it more difficult for the Government to be sinister if they wished.

Mr. Walker

I cannot be making myself clear. The hon. Gentleman still talks

about new powers. There are no new powers contained in the references to Section 2 of the 1966 Act. This form of words has been used throughout this legislation. What is new is Clause 4 and its provisions, and that is a different matter. But I understand the reactions of hon. Members opposite. We are coming to that part of the Bill dealing with price reductions.

I assure the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) again that there are no new powers in Clause 4 which would enable us to make a continuous standing reference on anything to the Board. I say that firmly and categorically. Clause 4 does not give us any such powers. I hope that I have now made it clear why the Government do not find the Amendment acceptable.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 291.

Division No. 246.] AYES [10.54 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Costain, A. P. Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Astor, John Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Crouch, David Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Awdry, Daniel Crowder, F. P. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Cunningham, Sir Knox Hastings, Stephen
Baker, w. H. K. (Banff) Currie, G. B. H. Hay, John
Balniel, Lord Dalkeith, Earl of Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Batsford, Brian Dance, James Heseltine, Michael
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Higgins, Terence L.
Bell, Ronald d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hiley, Joseph
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Hill, J. E. B.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Hirst, Geoffrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony Digby, Simon Wingfield Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Biffen, John Dodds-Parker, Douglas Holland, Philip
Biggs-Davison, John Doughty, Charles Hooson, Emlyn
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Drayson, G. B. Hordern, Peter
Black, Sir Cyril du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hornby, Richard
Blaker, Peter Eden, Sir John Howell, David (Guildford)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton) Hunt, John
Body, Richard Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bossom, Sir Clive Emery, Peter Iremonger, T. L.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Errington, Sir Eric Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Braine, Bernard Eyre, Reginald Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Brewis, John Farr, John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Fisher, Nigel Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Fortescue, Tim Jopling, Michael
Bryan, Paul Foster, Sir John Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Kerby, Capt. Henry
Bullus, Sir Eric Gibson-Watt, David Kershaw Anthony
Burden, F. A. Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Kimball, Marcus
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Kirk, Peter
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Kitson, Timothy
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Goodhart, Philip Knight, Mrs. Jill
Cary, Sir Robert Goodhew, Victor Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Channon, H. P. G. Gower, Raymond Lane, David
Chichester-Clark, R. Grant-Ferris, R. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Clark, Henry Gresham Cooke, R. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Clegg, Walter Grieve, Percy Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Cooke, Robert Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Gurden, Harold Longden, Gilbert
Cordle, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Lubbock, Eric
Corfield, F. V. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. MacArthur, Ian
Mackenzie, Alasdair, (Ross &Crom'ty) Peel, John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Percival, Ian Summers, Sir Spencer
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain Peyton, John Tapsell, Peter
McMaster, Stanley Pike, Miss Mervyn Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Maddan, Martin Pounder, Rafton Teeling, Sir William
Maginnis, John E. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Temple, John M.
Marten, Neil Price, David (Eastleigh) Tilney, John
Maude, Angus Prior, J. M. L. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Pym, Francis van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mawby, Ray Quennell, Miss J. M. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Vickers, Dame Joan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rees-Davies, W. R. Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Wall Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Walters, Dennis
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Ward, Dame Irene
Montgomery, Fergus Ridsdale, Julian Weatherill, Bernard
More, Jasper Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Webster, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Royle, Anthony Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Murton, Oscar Russell, Sir Ronald Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Neave, Airey Scott, Nicholas Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Scott-Hopkins, James Woodnutt, Mark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sharples, Richard Worsley, Marcus
Nott, John Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wylie, N. R.
Onslow, Cranley Silvester, Frederick Younger, Hn. George
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Osborn, John (Hallam) Smith, John (London & W'minster) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Page, Graham (Crosby) Speed, Keith Mr. Anthony Grant and
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Stainton, Keith Mr. Hector Monro.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Stodart, Anthony
NOES
Abse, Leo Cronin, John Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Albu, Austen Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gourlay, Harry
Allaun, Frank (Salford E.) Dalyeil, Tam Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Alldritt Walter Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Allen, Scholefield Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Grey, Charles (Durham)
Anderson, Donald Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Archer, Peter Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Griffiths, Eddie
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, Harold (Leek) Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hamling, William
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Delargy, Hugh Hannan, William
Barnes, Michael Dell, Edmund Harper, Joseph
Barnett, Joel Dempsey, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bence, Cyril Dewar, Donald Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Dickens, James Haseldine, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney Dobson, Ray Hattersley, Roy
Binns, John Doig, Peter Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Bishop, E. S. Driberg, Tom Heffer, Eric S.
Blackburn, F. Dunn, James A. Henig, Stanley
Blenkinsop, Arthur Dunnett, Jack Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hilton, W. S.
Booth, Albert Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Horner, John
Boston, Terence Eadie, Alex Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Edelman, Maurice Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Boyden, James Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Bradley, Tom Edwards, William (Merioneth) Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Ellis, John Howie, W.
Brooks, Edwin English, Michael Hoy, James
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Ennals, David Huckfield, Leslie
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Ensor, David Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Faulds, Andrew Hunter, Adam
Buchan, Norman Fernyhough, E. Hynd, John
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Foley, Maurice Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Cant, R. B. Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Carmichael, Neil Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Carter-Jonee, Lewis Ford, Ben Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Forrester, John Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Coe, Denis Fowler, Gerry Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Coleman, Donald Fraser, John (Norwood) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Concannon, J. D. Freeson, Reginald Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Conlan, Bernard Galpern, Sir Myer Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Gardner, Tony Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Crawshaw, Richard Ginsburg, David Judd, Frank
Kelley, Richard Molloy, William Ryan, John
Kenyon, Clifford Moonman, Eric Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Kerr, Mrs. Ann (R'ter & Chatham) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Sheldon Robert
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Lawson, George Morris, John (Aberavon) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Leadbitter, Ted Moyle, Roland Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ledger, Ron Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Murray, Albert Skeffington, Arthur
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Neal, Harold Slater, Joseph
Lee, John (Raading) Newens, Stan Small, William
Lestor, Miss Joan Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Snow, Julian
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.) Spriggs, Leslie
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Norwood, Christopher Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Oakes, Gordon Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lomas, Kenneth Ogden, Eric Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles O'Malley, Brian Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Luard, Evan Oram, Albert E. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Orme, Stanley Swingler, Stephen
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Oswald, Thomas Taverne, Dick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Thornton, Ernest
McBride, Neil Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Tinn, James
MacColl, James Palmer, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
MacDermot, Niall Park, Trevor Varley, Eric G.
Macdonald, A. H. Parker, John (Dagenham) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
McGuire, Michael Parkin, Bem (Paddington, N.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McKay, Mrs, Margaret Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Wallace, George
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Pavitt, Laurence Watkins, David (Consett)
Mackie, John Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mackintosh, John P. Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Wellbeloved, James
Maclennan, Robert Pentland, Norman Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. White, Mrs. Eirene
McNamara, J. Kevin Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Whitlock, William
MacPherson, Malcolm Price, William (Rugby) Wilkins, W. A.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Probert, Arthur Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Randall, Harry William, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Rees, Merlyn Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Manuel, Archie Rhodes, Geoffrey Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Marks, Kenneth Richard, Ivor Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Marquand, David Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Maxwell, Robert Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilson William (Coventry, S.)
Mayhew, Christoper Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as) Winnick, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mendelson, J. J. Rodgers, William (Stockton) Woof, Robert
Mikardo, Ian Roebuck, Roy Yates, Victor
Millan, Bruce Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Rose, Paul TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Ross, Rt. Hn. William Mr. John McCann and
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Back to
Forward to