New Clause 2

HC Deb 27 May 1968 vol 765 cc1263-93

POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO RUN CONTRACT CARRIAGE

1. (1) Every local authority who, under powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 101 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 or by any local Act or order, are running public service vehicles may run any of those vehicles as a contract carriage on any road within their district; and on the coming into force of this subsection the provisions of subsection (2)(a) of the said section 101 and of any local Act or order, so far as those provisions relate to the running by any local authority of a public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads within their district, shall cease to have effect.
2. (2) Any such local authority as aforesaid may resolve that this subsection shall apply to them; and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, on the passing of such a resolution—
1. (a) the authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage—
1. (i) between places within and places out side their district; and
2. (ii) so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district; and
2. (b) the provisions of the said subsection (2)(a) and of any local Act or order, so far as those provisions relate to the running by that authority of a public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads outside their district, shall cease to have effect.
3. (3) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a local authority who have passed a resolution under that subsection—
1. (a) until the expiration of a period of three months after the authority have—
1. (i) given notice in writing to the Minister that they propose to pass or have passed that resolution; and
2. (ii) sent to the Minister with that notice a statement in writing of the extent to which they have made or propose to make agreements for the co-ordination of bus services within, to and from their district with any other person for the time being providing such services; or
2. (b) if before the expiration of that period the authority have received from the Minister a notice under subsection (4) of this section, until that notice has been withdrawn by the Minister.
4. (4) If after considering the statement sent to him by a local authority in pursuance of paragraph (a)(ii) of subsection (3) of this section, the Minister is not satisfied with the degree of co-ordination of the bus services provided or proposed to be provided within, to and from that authority's district by that authority and all or any of the other persons for the time being providing such services, the Minister may before the expiration of the period referred to 1264 in paragraph (a) of that subsection give notice in writing to the authority that he is not so satisfied; but the Minister may at any time, whether in consequence of a further statement by the authority such as is mentioned in the said paragraph (a)(ii) or otherwise, inform the authority in writing that he withdraws that notice.
5. (5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, every local authority to whom subsection (1) of this section applies shall make to the Minister as respects each accounting period of the authority a report of all activities carried on by the authority by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section which shall include a statement of—
1. (a) the amount as determined by the authority of the turnover of the authority's transport undertaking for that period in respect of those activities;
2. (b) the extent or approximate extent (expressed in either case in monetary terms) to which, as so determined, the carrying on of those activities contributed to or restricted the surplus or deficit of that undertaking for that period;
3. (c) the method by which any determination for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection was arrived at; and
4. (d) such further information, if any, relating to the carrying on by the authority of those activities as the Minister may from time to time direct;
• and if it appears at any time to the Minister that, having regard to all the circumstances appearing to the Minister to be relevant, the charges made for the contract carriage services by means of public service vehicles run by the authority are unduly low in comparison with the cost of providing them, the Minister shall, after consultation with the authority, either direct the authority to make such modifications in their method of carrying on those activities as may be specified in the direction or direct the authority to discontinue those activities.
6. (6) Where, apart from this subsection, the first report of a local authority under subsection (5) of this section would be with respect to activities carried on for part only of an accounting period of the authority, that first report shall be made jointly as respects that part of that period and the next accounting period of the authority.
7. (7) In any legal proceedings, a document purporting to be a certificate given by or on behalf of the Minister that such a notice and statement as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section were received by the Minister from a specified local authority on a specified date and that the Minister did not before the expiration of the period referred to in that paragraph serve a notice on that authority under subsection (4) of this section shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters appearing from that document.
8. (8) In the application of this section to a local authority in Scotland or Wales, references therein to the Minister shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State.
1265
9. (9) In this section, the expressions 'local authority' and 'district' have the same meanings, respectively, as in Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1930 and the expression 'contract carriage' the same meaning as for the purposes of the Act of 1960; and any reference to the said Part V in any of the following provisions, namely—
1. (a) sections 103, 104, 106 and 107 of the said Act of 1930;
2. (b) the definition of 'sanctioning authority' in section 218 of the Local Government Act 1933;
3. (c) section 259(1)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947,
• shall include a reference to this section.— [Mr. Swingler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Swingler

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

This new Clause, like the first new one, and like the overwhelming majority of Government new Clauses and Amendments, has been tabled in response to back bench opinions expressed in Committee. It results from representations made on Clause 31 by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) when he tabled Amendments designed to remove restrictions in local legislation on the powers of local authorities to run contract carriages.

The Clause provides general powers for local authorities who operate public service vehicles to run them as contract carriages inside their own districts. It also provides that local authorities may assume general powers to run contract carriages outside their districts, provided they first satisfy the Minister as to their general policy of co-ordination with neighbouring authorities. These powers are very much on a par with those in some other Clauses of the Bill dealing with passenger transport authorities and executives, and are designed to prevent unfair competition by local authorities in respect of contract carriage.

Such powers as local authorities have to run contract services derive wholly from local Acts, and they are usually fairly restrictive in their nature, though there is a good deal of variation between one local authority and another. The Clause provides that a local authority which operates public service vehicles will have power to operate contract carriages—and these words are important— within its district, to and from its district, and, so far as the authority con- siders it requisite in connection with the exercise of its powers as a public service vehicle operator, between places outside its district.

Because contract carriage operation, unlike stage and express services, is not subject to road service licensing by the traffic commissioners, the exercise of these powers is made subject to the control of the Minister of Transport, and is, therefore, similar to the provision in relation to passenger transport executives. This provides for reports on the contract carriage business to be made to the Minister who has power to direct the authority to modify or discontinue the business, according to certain criteria.

Having considered representations made by hon. Members, and after consultation with the associations in the trade, who naturally expressed a variety of views about this extension of policy, and indeed about other matters of policy in the public transport field, the Government considered that it was in the public interest that local authorities should have these powers, but that it was also in the public interest to expect them, before assuming powers to operate contract carriages outside their districts, to show that their general policy in relation to their bus undertakings had regard to co-operation with the neighbouring operators. That is why the Clause provides that the local authorities are required to give the Minister not less than three months' notice of their intention to run contract carriages beyond their districts.

If the Minister is not satisfied with the evidence produced by local authorities about co-operation and co-ordination with neighbouring operators, he will have the power to serve a counter notice on the local authority. The powers for running contract carriages outside their own districts cannot be assumed by municipal operators until such time as the Minister withdraws such counter notice.

The general powers to run contract carriages wholly within a local authority's district under subsection (1) will have effect on the coming into operation of the Clause in replacement of any existing powers under local Acts. Unless and until a local authority assumes power under subsection (2) to operate to, from, and outside its area it will remain free to operate such contract services under existing powers that it may have under local legislation. When the appropriate Resolution has been passed, local authorities will become subject to the provisions of the Clause, whereby they must give notice to the Minister. The Minister will consider the merits of the case put up by them and their relationship with their neighbouring operators. If satisfied that he should not serve a counter notice on them, he will permit them to assume these wider powers in lieu of their existing ones.

I hope that, because we want to have the maximum diversity of operation, and because of the assurance that the Minister of Transport will retain the power to see that these services are operated in a fair way and in co-operation with neighbouring authorities, the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I was interested to hear the Minister explain how the local authorities had power to run contract carriages. I think that he is right in saying that their powers are embodied in local Acts, but, as I understand the situation, the phraseology of those Acts is open to various interpretations.

As I understand, local authorities rely on their interpretation of local Acts to run contract carriages, to run through vehicles, or to reserve vehicles for special purposes. There are no provisions which expressly permit them to do so. One has to be very careful passing legislation, because vague phraseology can be interpreted to justify special contract hire operations.

The Clause is another example of something being added to the Bill after its consideration in Committee. The industry was not consulted about it until the end of April, and yet now, within four weeks, we are expected to accept it. It is extraordinary that this legislation is being pushed through in this way. I should have liked a more specific explanation—and perhaps the Minister will rectify the omission when he replies —about whether the interpretation put by the municipal transport association— which wrote to his Ministry on 9th May —on local legislation is correct, and whether, if this had ever been tested by the courts, it would not be open to question whether these powers exist.

5.0 p.m.

Even if the power did exist for a few local authorities, the House would want to be careful about extending it. The Clause gives local authorities a considerable extension of existing activities. I was not convinced by what the Minister of State said about the way they could run services outside their own areas only if they felt that it was in the exercise of their powers over public service vehicles. He was quoting from the new Clause, subsection (2)(a)(ii). He did not quote what is said in paragraph (i), because that says that the authorities have this power between places within and places outside their district; There is no question of that paragraph being covered by the proviso built into subsection (2)—

Mr. Swingler

The hon. Gentleman has not read far enough. He will see that subsection (2)(a)(ii) refers to this power so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district; That is on a par with exactly the same condition which we put into Clause 10, about the powers of P.T.E.s. It must be in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles.

Mr. Heseltine

I am grateful, but whenever the Minister of State says that I should read the Bill, I remember the occasions when I have done so only to find that he was wrong. I am becoming convinced from the Clause that he is here making precisely the mistake which kept us so many nights on the Standing Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Hon. Members were involved in those nights as well and they will remember how often the Minister of State was proved wrong and how, the more indignant he became, the more wrong he usually turned out to be.

The Clause says that any authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage between places within and places outside its district. From this moment on paragraph (2) becomes a special power, subsidiary to but not connected with paragraph (i) and paragraph (i) does not place the restriction on the powers to run contract carriages which will be found in paragraph (ii). It is clear, therefore, that local authorities will be able, under this legislation—although I dare say that this was never intended by the Ministry draftsmen—to conduct themselves as contract carriage operators between places within and outside their areas, with no restrictions—

Mr. Swingler indicated dissent.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what the legislation says.

My anxiety is that, whereas in Standing Committee there were weeks for him to change his mind, now there are only two or three hours and I know that my hon. Friends from Scotland are anxious to move on—

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Member is always anxious to move on to Scottish business, but never to move on from Scottish business.

Having substantiated, I hope, this power to operate contract carriages outside the area without limitation—

Mr. Harry Howarth (Wellingborough)

If I read the new Clause correctly, the two paragraphs in question are subject to subsection (3). That says that the authority must give notice in writing to the Minister of its proposals.

Mr. Heseltine

We are now moving on to the partial procedure in which the Minister will indulge on appeal and investigation. I hope that the hon. Member will be patient, because by the time that I have dealt with subsection (3) he may not be so confident of it.

It is clear from subsection (2)(a)(i) that contract carnages can be run from within to without the area without restriction. That means, first, that contract carriage, which covers excursion tours, which are a major part of the private sector, can be operated from the municipality to anywhere in the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would be the first to accept that they are unlikely to go outside the confines of Europe, but the excursion tour business to Europe is substantial and tours from municipalities to the Continent and anywhere in the United Kingdom will now be within the powers of the local authorities.

I want to be sure that this is what the Ministry is legislating to do. It is obvious that it is not intended and that the Minister of State thinks that I am wrong. If he can assure me that I am wrong, and that this will be toughened up in another place, we will be satisfied, but it is obvious that the Minister of State wanted to restrict the local authority powers, and that he believes that the legislation does that. We require an assurance that that will be done.

We will now allow local authorities to compete with outings, works buses, school buses and the excursion tour business—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Member is wildly enthusiastic about this legislation. What a tragedy it is for him that the Minister of State does not agree with him—

Mr. Swingler

I have never said that.

Mr. Heseltine

—but believes that the legislation does not do this. I believe that the hon. Member is right—

Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Heseltine

We can now leave this point, I think, to the Minister of State's reply, since we have clearly shown the differences between our side and the other. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me if the Minister of State does not clear up this issue.

Subsection (3) provides for a series of appeals and presentations of plans to the Minister before the local authorities can do this kind of business. When I read the subsection, I despaired for the Ministry's attitude and comprehension of the business for which they were legislating. Whereas there is generally no competition in municipal transport and the traffic commissioners have so organised matters over nearly the last 40 years that that section of the industry does not compete—

Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Heseltine

I must at least be allowed to paint the picture, however unpleasant it may be when viewed from the other side of the House.

Once one moves into excursion tours and contract carriage business, there is real competition, and the attempt to build in a set of paraphernalia such as is embodied in subsection (3), to see that there is no real competition, shows that there is no understanding of this business.

Before local authorities can indulge in contract carriage work, they must give three months notice of their intention to take advantage of the new powers. Then they must send a plan to the Minister showing how they propose to make agreements for the co-ordination of bus services in the areas in which they intend to compete. They will submit the plan, showing how they will co-ordinate services run by people whose livelihood depends upon stopping them providing the services in the first place, because they will move into areas where they will compete with the private sector. How one is to show that one is co-ordinating the private with the municipal sector, I do not understand.

Then the Minister will have time to decide what should happen and to see, under subsection (4), whether he is satisfied with the degree of proposed co-ordination. What does this mean? What is the "degree of co-ordination" which it will be mandatory for local authorities to reach before getting permission to go ahead? No doubt the Minister will sympathise with local authorities which are ambitious to extend their activities under these provisions.

Local authorities wishing to extend their activities in this way must submit a plan providing for a degree of co-ordination. There is no guidance in the Clause about that degree of co-ordination and we do not know what the Minister will reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman to advise local authorities of what a desirable degree of co-ordination is and, if not, how will local authorities co-ordinate when they are left in a vacuum?

Then the Minister has a second protection up his sleeve. He is empowered, knowing that the private sector is anxious about these provisions, to ensure that a thing called "unfair competition" does not take place—to ensure that local authorities are not allowed to fiddle their overheads and so run subsidised tours to defray, on a marginal cost basis, some of their expenses. Local authorities will have to submit a report. No doubt the drafters of the new Clause felt content, having stated that a report must be presented, that the private sector would be protected. But will the report be audited? The local authorities, being the interested parties, will submit a report but there is nothing in this legislation to say that it must be audited.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities, many of which are Conservative-controlled, would fiddle the books?

Mr. Heseltine

Has the hon. Gentleman heard of the district auditor? What does he think he does when he examines the books? I am merely seeking an assurance.

Mr. Huckfield

Really.

Mr. Heseltine

The Government have said that the district auditor will do this, but that is not said in the Clause. Even a nod of assent from the Minister will be enough to assure me that the district auditor will examine the report.

Mr. Manuel

If the hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of local authority procedure he would know that local authorities must, whether or not they like it, submit the whole of their accounting and book-keeping to the district auditor, who is Government authorised, and that these documents are dealt with each year in the most competent fashion.

Mr. Heseltine

Of course they are. I agree that the auditing is done in a competent fashion and that the books are magnificently examined, but this report is quite different. The legislation does not say that the books sent to the Ministry must be audited accounts.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Gentleman is moving his ground.

Mr. Heseltine

I am not moving one centimetre. I want an assurance from the Minister that the report will be subject to district audit. I am sure that he will readily give that assurance. If so, why not include it in the Clause?

Let us assume that the report is audited and that it is considered when it arrives at the Ministry of Transport. We understand that the Minister then has power to tell a local authority to make adjustments where it is considered that the method of carrying on the business results in charges which are "unduly low." What are unduly low charges?

Even in a commercial situation there might be a range of conflicting motives which would make it impossible to define an unduly low charge. For example, one might make such charges when breaking into a new field. What does the Minister consider to be an unduly low charge? I suspect that we are moving back to the question of balancing the books and breaking even.

Leaving aside the question of local authorities using capital assets like property, and so on, where the market price does; not apply, let us assume that the challenge is to break even. In what sort of position does that leave those in the private sector, with whom the local authorities will be competing and who must make a profit? If the Minister is not prepared to say that in moving into the excursion tours business local authorities must make a commercial return, then he is threatening the death knell of the private sector, which will not be able to compete. I suppose that the private sector should be satisfied that a report will be presented and that adjustments may be made if the charges are considered to be unduly low.

5.15 p.m.

In any event, when will the report be submitted? Perhaps the business has been going on for some time and an investigation is carried out in connection with the unfair charges aspect. The Clause states that the report must cover the first year but that, where the first year includes a part of an accounting year, then that part is added to another year before the report is submitted. This means that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) sharply grasped what this means—

Mr. Manuel

That is unusual for him.

Mr. Heseltine

—when he pointed out, from his great knowledge of commerce and accounting, that 23 months may go by in many cases before such a report is even begun to be prepared. Then it must go to the Ministry.

We are, therefore, talking about two-and-a-half years elapsing before the Ministry hears about what is going on. By that time the present Government may not even be in power. That is the protection which this "phoney" set of precautions is supposed to give to the private sector. That is why the private sector does not believe in it, why it considers the protection to be illusory and why this concept is unworkable—not to mention the speed with which this legislation has been pushed before the House. All these things, coupled with the fact that it will be guillotined tonight, makes this exercise nothing short of indecent.

Mr. Manuel

Hon. Members who served for many months on the Measure in Standing Committee will have been surprised at the volume of criticism levied against the new Clause by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). When I spoke on this theme following representations I had received from the Municipal Passenger Transport Association hon. Gentlemen opposite were dumb.

Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—

Mr. Manuel

Apart from a word or two from the hon. Member for Tavistock, hon. Gentlemen opposite were dumb and certainly did not show any signs of resentment.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman will remember vividly—I checked this at one o'clock this morning—that when he introduced an Amendment on this theme he admitted that he had not had time to do his homework on the subject, having received the information only about 24 hours earlier, that he was willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter would be considered on Report and that that was why I said virtually nothing at the time.

Mr. Manuel

Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, very little was said on that occasion by his hon. Friends and it is, therefore, difficult to understand why they should now show this amount of antipathy and antagonism towards local transport undertakings. They have bleeped about competition and their belief in it. Now, when local authorities —the transport undertakings of which belong to the people in the various areas —want to compete with private undertakings, hon. Gentlemen opposite sing a vastly different tune. I ask hon. Gentlemen not to be too antagonistic.

I was asked by the Municipal Passenger Transport Association to raise the question of contract carriage. That was the only communication I had from the Association until today, when I was asked to phone a certain number. It turned out to be the Association, which wanted to know what was happening to its suggested Amendment. It was a starred Amendment, but when the hon. Member for Tavistock has been here a few years longer he will know that this is common practice.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman will not be here then.

Mr. Manuel

I have come through a few battles. Certainly nobody sitting on the Front Bench could knock me out. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was dealt with in Committee as he deserved to be; he was rendered impotent and did not count. I do not think he will count on Report or on Third Reading.

I was asked over the phone whether the suggested Amendment would be brought up on Report. I told the Association that a new Clause had been tabled. The Vice-President was very pleased about this and told me that the Association at its last meeting had not changed its mind about its objective, which is embodied in the Clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for going so fully into the question. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for agreeing to the Clause. I am certain that the majority of people will be proud to think that municipal undertakings will be able to do contract carriage.

Some large local authorities already have these powers under Local Acts. The hon. Member for Tavistock expressed doubt about whether the powers contained in the Private Acts were real. We need not bother our heads about that, because it will be superseded by the Clause giving members of the Municipal Transport Association full power to operate contract carriage. This is to be welcomed. Municipal undertakings in large conurbations must have large fleets to meet peak loads at meal times and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. At other times hundreds of buses lie idle. I believe that fair-minded people will agree that a local authority transport undertaking which has to provide such a service should be enabled to compete on fair and reasonable terms with private operators. That is all I ask for—fair competition between private operators and municipal undertakings.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the excess capacity during certain hours will be costed and priced out?

Mr. Manuel

If the hon. Gentleman seeks to give credence to the innuendo put out by the hon. Member for Tavistock, I advise him to apply that microscopic eye of his to private enterprise in the same way as he is applying it to local authority undertakings. Possibly he will discover much more dirt there than he will in municipal transport.

The hon. Member for Tavistock mentioned the district auditors. I do not know who he means. I know about Government auditors. The hon. Gentleman may be confused between the district valuer and the Government auditors. He meant the Government auditor, although, through ignorance of local authority procedure, he misnamed him. The hon. Gentleman doubted whether Government auditors would do their job properly.

Mr. Harry Howarth

I do not know what the position in Scotland is, but will my hon. Friend accept it from me that we have district auditors in England?

Mr. Manuel

I do not know whether I should call that a stab in the back. However, even accepting what my hon. Friend says—that there are district auditors in another field—I still stick to my point about Government auditors. I am sure that this applies in England as it does in Scotland. I give a very warm welcome to the Clause. I am sure that the Municipal Passenger Transport Association will be delighted that we are writing it into the Bill and taking this great step forward.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has just made a speech which in tenor was rather similar to a number which we heard from him in Committee. The hon. Gentleman can never understand why we on this side object to nationalised industries or municipali- ties undertaking competitive business. He seems to think that there is something immoral in our objecting to that happening because we do not object to its happening with private enterprise.

The difference is that private enterprise is using its own money, whereas the municipalities and nationalised industries are using ours. If it is a very speculative business, it is important that the activities of either a nationalised industry or of a municipality should be limited and that we should ensure that they do not take undue risks with somebody else's money. If the effect of the Clause is as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) suggested, that municipalities will undertake foreign tours and such things, we are perfectly right to be cautious. That type of contract carriage work is very speculative and is highly specialised business which it is not at all desirable for a municipal bus undertaking to enter into.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this work, as well as being speculative, is also very profitable?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

Speculative business very often is profitable, but it is also likely to make a loss. Whereas a private enterprise concern or a limited company which must answer to its shareholders may take these risks, it is not right that such risks should be taken with rate payers' or taxpayers' money by a nationalised industry. That is the point which has been overlooked by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Huckfield

For the last hour or so while I have been present we have had the same old argument used by the Opposition as was used day after day in Committee. The argument is that we should put as many shackles as we can on public enterprise, take all restrictions off private enterprise, and then blame public enterprise for making a loss.

It seems a great pity that when we have had these arguments from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) they did not even consult the annual report of the traffic commissioners for the country as a whole before discussing the last new Clause. The hon. Member for Tavistock did not even bother to ask local authority representatives about their views. All that the new Clause seeks is to bring local authorities into line with the powers of passenger transport authorities and the powers which private companies already have.

As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) said, this at times is highly speculative work. As I reminded him, at times it is highly profitable work. I suspect that hon. Members opposite want to keep local authorities out of this work for that very reason.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

rose—

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) does not know anything about this.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must not make that remark, for I know a lot about making profits and losing money. Making a profit in this matter is not automatic. To imagine that when entering this kind of business one will automatically make a profit, shows the weakness of the argument. The whole of the work of local civil servants makes it absolutely inappropriate for them to take on this highly competitive business.

Mr. Huckfield

I hasten to intervene in my own speech. The experience of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in the making of profits is different from this argument.

I agree that this work is not always profitable, but, if we are to discuss profitability and the speculative nature of some of this work, we should at the same time discuss the particular safeguards which are provided in the Clause. It is impossible to discuss profitability and to say that certain sectors of the industry will be subjected to unfair competition without at the same time discussing the safeguards. All that we are doing is putting local authorities on a similar competitive basis as the private operator and the passenger transport authority of the future.

Some remarks have been made by the hon. Member for Tavistock about undervaluation of local authority property assets. Local authorities, in their transport departments, at least have property assets. The hon. Member should look at some of the private operators. I exclude those in my constituency, for whom I have a certain amount of respect. They would not vote for me, anyway. At least, I do not brag about it. If the hon. Member looked at some of the private companies which he thinks are valuing their property assets correctly, he would ascertain whether, in the first place, they have property assets.

The kind of arguments he has put forward this afternoon, particularly those he dreamt up, show that the only reason why the Opposition want to talk this afternoon is to keep this debate going as long as possible and to prevent discussion—

Mr. Peter Walker

In this debate the Government side have spoken, if anything, longer than those on the Opposition side. It seems that it is the intention of the Government side to filibuster on this matter so that we shall not reach any of our new Clauses. Will the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) withdraw the remark he made?

Mr. Huckfield

I remind the hon. Member that the Government side have spoken a great deal more sense.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Huckfield

Local authorities are ideally fitted to do this kind of work because of the burden of excess capacity which they have to carry. The hon. Members for Worcester and Tavistock, who claim that they have studied this matter, ought to know that many large authorities have 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of fleet capacity off the roads at off-peak periods. If one is to run a local authority enterprise one should make as much use as possible of that off-peak capacity. That is what this new Clause offers. The new Clause puts local authorities on a fair competitive basis. The Opposition wants to put as many shackles on them as possible.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to resist referring to you as the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). You must forgive me if I do so, because we sat under his chairmanship for four months, and it was a great chairmanship.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) illustrated with stark realism the folly of this new Clause. He told us that today the Municipal Passenger Transport Association had telephoned to him to ask what had happened to the Amendment he moved in Committee and that he was forced to tell the Association that there was a new Clause on the Notice Paper for discussion today. That illustrated the folly of introducing a Clause of this length at such a late stage when even those most affected did not know of its existence.

Mr. Swingler

I must correct that. Of course, following the raising of this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in Committee, we had consultations with all the associations concerned and canvassed their views. I assure the House that we had conversations and canvassed the views of the appropriate associations.

Mr. Bessell

The Minister of State should clear that with his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. The statement which the hon. Member made very clearly was that today he was asked by the Association—

Mr. Manuel

No.

Mr. Bessell

—what happened to the Amendment he moved in Committee and he told the Association that it was now on the Notice Paper as a new Clause. If this Clause has been so thoroughly discussed with the interests involved, it seems incredible that that should have happened.

Mr. Manuel

The argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is so much froth. I did not say "the Association". I mentioned an individual whose office I spoke to. It was that individual who did not know. I hope that hon. Member opposite will not accuse me of trying to tell an untruth.

Mr. Bessell

I did not imply that the hon. Member was trying to mislead the House. He was telling us the facts, but, as I remember them, it was the Vice-President of the Association who was not aware of this Clause. I believe that the vast majority of local authorities and of the general public do not know about it, either.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

To put the question of consultation into perspective, I should point out that the Ministry did not write to the Public Transport Association—by far the largest state-owned association—until weeks after the discussion in Committee, not until 29th April. The Ministry did not have a reply —totally against the proposals—until 9th May, and four days later the new Clause was drafted.

Mr. Bessell

I am grateful for that information, because it helps to illustrate the point I was making. If there were no other reason for voting against this Clause, I hope that it will be our intention to do so, because it is quite wrong, at this late stage in our proceedings, for a Clause of such complexity to be introduced.

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) raised a number of questions. I agree that the question whether accounts are audited or not is probably not a significant issue here, but all hon. Members opposite will agree that that is precisely the sort of question which would be thrashed out in Committee of the Clause were debated there, as it should have been. The same applies to the question whether municipal undertakings will now be free to run services outside their own districts in the sense of running European tours as well. That is a profitable side of the business on the private sector.

I am not suggesting that municipal undertakings should not do that— I am not saying whether it would be right or wrong—but I am pointing out that it is quite wrong for the House to have to make a decision on an issue of that importance without proper consideration of the matter in Standing Committee. The Government have made a grave error in introducing a Clause of this complexity at such a late stage.

I am concerned about the powers which we are to give to some local authorities in this matter and the conflicts which may arise between those powers and the powers given to passenger transport authorities. The two are interlinked. Would a local authority, under a P.T.A., be empowered to carry on these services? Would it be em- powered to do what is provided for in the new Clause if it came within a passenger transport area? If not, how disgraceful it would be if a local authority were deceived into believing that it would have this new power and into setting up all the complex machinery for operating it only to find a few months later, after a passenger transport area had been designated, that not only were its efforts wasted but the money it had spent had gone down the drain.

Mr. Swingler

Under the Bill as it stands a passenger transport authority will have these powers. We discussed at length in Committee whether they should have contract carriage powers and what the criteria should be. They would have these powers under the Bill as it now stands. What we are doing now, in a sense, is bringing the municipal operators into line with that.

Mr. Bessell

The Minister misunderstands me. I am not suggesting that passenger transport authorities will not have these powers. We debated the matter at length, and I know about that. I am asking about a local authority which comes under a passenger transport authority: will it retain the powers provided under the new Clause? I think that it will not. If a passenger transport area is established, the local authorities' powers under the Clause will automatically vanish. That is my interpretation. Therefore, as I say, a local authority might, in all innocence, set up the machinery implied here but be unable to operate it later.

Next, what about the difficulties which will inevitably arise in the case of a small local authority which has not previously operated a transport service? Such a local authority would be involved in considerable capital expense, which might be a serious matter for it, in entering into this kind of enterprise and operating powers which it had not previously possessed. One could continue at length to debate this matter. All I am emphasising is that this brief debate—I hope that it will be brief, as we are working strictly under a Guillotine—illustrates how wrong it is for a Minister to introduce at this late stage a Clause which is imperfectly understood by hon. Members on both sides, for the very good reason that we have not had opportunity to debate it line by line in Standing Committee.

There are over 12,000 words in the new Clause. It is disgraceful to ask us to accept it virtually on the nod or after a debate which cannot, because of the Guillotine, continue for more than a few more minutes.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

rose—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. George Willis (Edinburgh, East)

Hon. Members opposite said they wanted it discussed.

Mr. Leadbitter

Hon. Members are anxious, to have the Clause discussed line by line, with great care. In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) set a high standard in debate, but on this occasion he has made the fatal error of emulating the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). He said very little about the Clause itself. His submission was more or less a complaint. He does not like the Clause, but he goes no further than that. The hon. Member for Tavistock is the man we want to get at. He is the prima donna. Not only in Committee but in this debate, too, by his fertile imagination, his elegance and his use—

Mr. Peter Walker

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has not said a word about the Clause. Is this not plain filibustering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The hon. Gentleman has only just begun his speech. I imagine that he will deal with the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter

You have understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was completing a preamble to an expression of my views about the Clause. I was deprecating that the Clause has not yet been discussed on its merits.

The argument on this important Clause has been directed to two points. First, there was the complaint—this came from the hon. Member for Tavistock—that it gave local authorities an extension of their existing powers and activities. The second leg of the argument was a complaint about competition with private enterprise. Those were the two chief features of the Opposition's argument. For the rest, hon. Members attempted to gild the lily with questions about auditing, accountancy and co-ordination—all matters which one would expect a Member of Parliament to understand. I shall not refer to any of those frills to the argument. Reasonable people accept that the ability to account for finance in local government is a fine ability which sets a standard which private enterprise might well find worth following. Local government is fortunate in having officers of a high standard, particularly in the finance departments, officers far more competent to deal with matters such as this than was suggested by hon. Members opposite.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) also lapsed from his exceptionally high standard of debate in the Standing Committee. He said that private enterprise uses its own money and municipalities use ours. He should know that in a mixed economy one cannot draw rigid distinction like that and expect one's listeners to accept such arguments as logical. In a large number of corporate bodies, municipalities, nationalised undertakings and other bodies such as public utilities, investment and capital programmes are concerned with a great deal of trading which covers questions—

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I, if I may say so with respect, have been in the House long enough to recognise a filibuster. The hon. Gentleman is not attempting to camouflage it. May we ask, through you, which of the important new Clauses and other business on the Order Paper hon. Members opposite will avoid discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have both been in the House long enough to recognise a filibuster. It is sometimes difficult to know exactly where to draw the line. I hope that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will bring his remarks to a reasonable conclusion as we are under a guillotine.

Mr. Leadbitter

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and—

Mr. Bessell

The hon. Gentleman has said that we on this side of the House have dropped below the high standard of debate in Committee. I appeal to him seriously and sincerely. We are under a desperate timetable. Is it reasonable for hon. Members opposite to take up time in this way? Will he please come to the point quickly?

Mr. Leadbitter

I have watched the clock with great care, and I have spoken for a shorter time than any hon. Member. Therefore, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. We know what the inter-play is likely to be here on the Report stage, and I seek to avoid it. After my preamble I addressed myself to the specific words of the hon. Member for Truro, the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). If they do not want those words counted, they should not use them, and then we should save time.

We on this side of the House welcome the Gauss because we believe that the general tests of competitiveness can be established just as efficiently between municipalities and private enterprise as between different bodies or businesses within the present private enterprise sector. A municipality has a responsibility to its ratepayers to do two things nowadays—to provide the best service for the money it is given by the ratepayers and taxpayers, and to provide the best kind of social and other services which, within its competence, are essential to the people it seeks to serve. There is nothing wrong in that.

If hon. Members opposite want to stop a tendency towards filibustering—and it is a temptation—the hon. Member for Tavistock can set the pace by being brief. But if he introduces a lot of red herrings he must not underestimate the ability of hon. Members on this side of the House to answer him.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if, under the guillotine Motion, we discuss only the new Clauses moved from the opposite side of the House, there will be 18 minutes available for each discussion? We have been discussing this Clause for one hour and five minutes, and most of the time has now been wasted by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools.

Mr. Leadbitter

Will the hon. Member for Tavistock realise that one can address oneself to the details of the Clause competently? I will not take instructions from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should understand that one of the rules in the House is that if other hon. Members want the hon. Member who is speaking to continue to stay on his feet, they should intervene.

The House has not done itself a service either in Standing Committee or here. After 210 hours upstairs and 3½ days here, the very essence of the new Clauses will be lost to us in debate if we pursue the kind of red herrings the hon. Gentleman introduced. The House can make for itself a new standard in this first hour and a half—

Mr. Peter Walker

The hon. Gentleman has made repetition after repetition that has nothing to do with the Clause. This is obviously a deliberate filibuster on his part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that there is a certain amount of blame on both sides of the House. Hon. Members have been accused of filibustering, and I hope that we can devote ourselves to the merits of the new Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter

The pace must be set. I have watched the clock since the debate started—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall not tolerate any more discussion about the merits or demerits of the guillotine. We must now the discuss the merits or demerits of the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter

I am discussing the merits of the Clause within a period of time. I want the time for discussion of it to be put to the best use. It does not serve the best interests—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that line of reasoning on this debate. He, must address himself to the merits of the new Clause and nothing else.

Mr. Manuel

My hon. Friend's references are exactly similar to those made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), and at greater length, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who did not discuss the Clause at all but spoke only about the lack of time to discuss it. If that was allowed, I do not think that my hon. Friend should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has replied to that point. We have had enough discussion of that, and I must now ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with the Clause.

Mr. Leadbitter

We on this side of the House are anxious to extend the activities and freedom of local government, and the Clause does just that as regards transport undertakings. The hon. Member for Bodmin and other hon. Members opposite fell into the trap time and time again of saying that they wanted to give local transport authorities more power. We resent the party opposite making a public claim to want to give local authorities more powers and freedom and then seeking to restrict them when it comes to legislation. That is our objection, and that is why hon. Members on this side of the House support the Clause.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

I welcome the new Clause. I have always understood that the purpose of the Committee stage was to allow back benchers and the Opposition to put suggestions to the Government which they would consider and, where desirable, incorporate at the relevant stage. That is exactly what has happened over the Clause, which rectifies a situation which was pointed out in Committee.

The Clause says: (a) the authority may run a public service vehicle as a contract carriage—

1. (i) between places within and places outside their district; and
2. (ii) so far as the authority consider requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers to run public service vehicles within, to or from their district, between places outside their district;

It is the last phrase—"between places outside their district"—which has caused all the argument by hon. Members opposite.

Let me give an example of what can happen under existing legislation without the new Clause. Let us take the example of a large city with three villages nearby. Supposing there is a dance in village No. 3 and the city local authority puts on a special bus to take people home at the end of it. Under existing legislation, it cannot take anyone home from village No. 3 to village No. 2 or village No. 1. It can only carry people from village No. 3 to the city.

6.0 p.m.

There is, therefore, a need, as was pointed out in Standing Committee, to change the law in order to give local authorities power to make sensible use of this sort of service. It will mean that a bus laid on for such a purpose will be able to take people back to their village, if that is where they live, instead of having to drive straight back into the city.

This is surely a sensible arrangement and I am surprised by the attitude of the Opposition. They have spoken against the Clause but not one has given a reason for his objections. They have all merely made general, sweeping statements about extending powers to local authorities and running subsidised tours to Europe and unduly low charges.

The primary function of a local authority transport undertaking is to fulfil the need at peak periods and obviously it must try to find a use for its buses at off-peak periods. That is what the Clause gives the local authorities power to do. I am surprised by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. If the purpose of a Standing Committee is to persuade the Government that there are Clauses in a Bill which need to be rectified, and the Government listen to the Committee and rectify those Clauses on Report stage, why object when they carry out the change? I welcome this new Clause.

Mr. Swingler

I sympathise strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). It is an extraordinary situation. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) played a prominent part in Committee. Is it his view that, when a matter has been raised by back benchers in Committee, and the Government have given an assurance on it, the Government should then do nothing about it on Report stage? This new Clause was produced through the initiative taken by back benchers in Committee. That is why it is before us now. That applies to a whole series of other new Clauses and Amendments.

Mr. Bessell

The point I was making is that it is not that I object to the Government taking up points raised in Committee but that I object to the size and length and complexity of new Clause 2. Because of its length, size and complexity, it should have been dealt with upstairs or made a separate piece of legislation.

Mr. Swingler

But this matter has been under discussion for years. All those connected with municipal transport know that to be so. I do not mind the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) making malicious attacks on me—I am used to that—but I resent his vicious and violent attacks on municipal bus operators. In Committee, he presented himself as an apostle of local government powers. What gross hypocrisy! First he implies that local authority bus operators are carrying on unlawful activities. Why, therefore, have they not been challenged in court?

The hon. Gentleman then says that bus operators are carrying out some contract carriage services now. Certainly it is the case that some municipal authorities have reserve power to do so. But why have not those people who think that municipal operators are breathing down their necks challenged their activities? Such activities have been going on for years, quite legally, in areas represented by hon. Members opposite, but they themselves have never challenged them. They have never claimed that these activities were unlawful.

Our aim here is to see that all municipal bus operators should have the chance to do what many of them have been doing for years through local Acts or reserve powers. We have built in some additional safeguards. The hon. Member for Tavistock decried them as bureaucracy and red tape. He even implied that local government bus operators do not have their accounts audited.

We disregard that kind of innuendo because it is so absurd. The judgment which hon. Members will make will be on the basis of their attitude to the virtues and merits of municipal bus operators. The implication of the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock is that bus transport is nothing but jungle warfare. I must say that, in some parts of bus transport, there is something like jungle warfare, but we want to bring about co-ordination and co-operation between the different kinds of operators—State-owned, local government, and privately owned. That is the essence of our policy. All these implications about cut-throat competition, subsidies, etc., are designed to sow the seeds of maximum suspicion between the different kinds of operators in bus transport so as to make more difficult the kind of co-operation and co-ordination which we want to bring about.

I do not believe that bus operators in general object to our proposal. State and private operators have been living for years side by side with municipal bus operators who have been exercising contract carriage rights. Why have the Opposition raised such violent and vicious allegations? Such work has been going on a long time, and all we propose to do is to extend the power to carry out such services to all municipal undertakings.

But we also provide that, where an undertaking runs a contract service outside its boundaries, there should be safeguarding provisions. The local authority must apply for the Minister's permission and he will have power to object if it is carrying on cut-throat competition. This is the safeguard of the private operators and of the National Bus Company, in which the State will have a big stake. If hon. Members opposite insist on dividing upon this, it will be judgment on the trust which they have in municipal bus operators and in the contribution which these are able to make to the provision of an efficient public transport service.

Mr. Peter Walker

The Minister of State's speech was only equalled in irresponsibility by some of those from his own back benchers. I shall certainly see that the record of the debate obtains the widest possible circulation. The Government allow three and a half hours for 23 Clauses to be discussed and then spend one hour twenty minutes of the time on one Clause, propped up by filibustering speeches from their own backbenchers.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has not referred to the new Clause, yet you have not pulled him up. Two of my hon. Friends were pulled up by you for that offence. I hope you will convey the same advice to the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would be better if we confined this discussion to the merits or demerits of the new Clause.

Mr. Peter Walker

We will see that the widest circulation is given to the manner in which this debate has been conducted by the Government.

As to the arguments, first of all there was no attack or criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on municipal bus undertakings, and the record will show that quite clearly. As to the point of order, the Minister of State, as is so frequently the case, showed that he did not understand the point, by saying that there was a suggestion that the accounts would not be properly audited. The suggestion of my hon. Friend, to which the Minister failed to reply, was the point about whether the report going to the Minister would have the support of and be validated by the auditor. We have not had a reply. Can the Minister of State give us the reply? Can we have a reply from the Minister of State?

There is no reply from the Minister, because he knows full well that these reports will not be validated by the auditor concerned. This is the point. Therefore, the figures concerned will be figures representing the views of a particular council. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in these matters, even a report has

Division No. 170.]	AYES	[6.15 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Boyden, James	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Albu, Austen	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Bradley, Tom	Dalyell, Tam
Alldritt, Walter	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Allen, Scholefield	Brooks, Edwin	Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Anderson, Donald	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Archer, Peter	Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Armstrong, Ernest	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Buchan, Norman	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Delargy, Hugh
Barnes, Michael	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Dell, Edmund
Barnett, Joel	Carmichael, Neil	Dempsey, James
Baxter, William	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Dewar, Donald
Bence, Cyril	Chapman, Donald	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Coe, Denis	Dickens, James
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Coleman, Donald	Dobson, Ray
Bidwell, Sydney	Concannon, J. D.	Doig, Peter
Binns, John	Conlan, Bernard	Driberg, Tom
Blackburn, F.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Dunn, James A.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Dunnett, Jack
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Crawshaw, Richard	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Booth, Albert	Cronin, John	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Eadie, Alex

to be validated by an auditor. Very frequently a point will be raised by the auditor, which the parties concerned had brought up previously.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a local authority is required by Act of Parliament to send a report on these matters to the Minister after the accounts have been audited. If he is suggesting that they will not be correct figures, he is suggesting that the councils will be "cooking" them.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman does not understand. He has not read the new Clause. We are not talking about accounts going out, but about a report suggesting the viability of a particular operation. These will not carry the auditor's remarks.

The Minister did not comment upon the possibility of a 23-month delay as a result of the wording in this new Clause. This is a piece of legislation being tacked on to the end of the Bill, without proper disscussions. This is illustrated by the fact that back benchers opposite wanted about eight times as much time as the Government had allocated. In view of this badly-worded, badly-drafted piece of legislation, I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 238.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Ellis, John	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
English, Michael	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Probert, Arthur
Ensor, David	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Randall, Harry
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lipton, Marcus	Rankin, John
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm.'h'm, Yardley)	Lomas, Kenneth	Rees, Merlyn
Faulds, Andrew	Loughlin, Charles	Reynolds, C. W.
Fernyhough, E.	Luard, Evan	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Richard, Ivor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Foley, Maurice	McBride, Neil	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McCann, John	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Ford, Ben	MacColl, James	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Forrester, John	MacDermot, Niall	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Fowler, Gerry	Macdonald, A. H.	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	McGuire, Michael	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Freeson, Reginald	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Roebuck, Roy
Gardner, Tony	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Rose, Paul
Garrett, W. E.	Mackintosh, John P.	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Ginsburg, David	Maclennan, Robert	Ryan, John
Gourlay, Harry	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	MacPherson, Malcolm	Sheldon, Robert
Gregory, Arnold	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)	Slater, Joseph
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Manuel, Archie	Small, William
Hamling, William	Mapp, Charles	Spriggs, Leslie
Harper, Joseph
Harrson, Walter (Wakefield)	Marks, Kenneth	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Hart, Rt. Hn.Judith	Marquand, David	Stonehouse, John
Haseldine, Norman	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Hattersley, Roy	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Hazell, Bert	Maxwell, Robert	Swingler, Stephen
Heffer, Eric S.	Mayhew, Christopher	Symonds, J. B.
Henig, Stanley	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Taverne, Dick
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Mendelson, J. J.	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Millan, Bruce	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Thronton, Ernest
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Tinn, James
Hoy, James	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Tomney, Frank
Huckfield, Leslie	Molloy, William	Urwin, T. W.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Moonman, Eric	Varley, Eric G.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Morris, John, (Aberavon)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Moyle, Roland	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hunter, Adam	Murray, Albert	Wallace, George
Hynd, John	Neal, Harold	Watkings, David (Consett)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Newens, Stan	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &Radnor)
		Weitzman, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)	Wellbeloved, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oakes, Gordon	Whitaker, Ben
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)	Ogden, Eric	White, Mrs, Eirene
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Orme, Stanley	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Oswald, Thomas	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)	Paget, R. T.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Palmer, Arthur	Winnick David
Judd, Frank	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Kelley, Richard	Park, Trevor	Woof, Robert
Kenyon, Clifford	Parher, John (Dagenham)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Yates, Victor
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Pavitt, Laurence
Lawson, George	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Leadbitter, Ted	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Mr. Charles Grey and
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Pentland, Norman	Mr. Alan Fitch.
Lee, John (Reading)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bessell, Peter	Brinton, Sir Tatton
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Biffen, John	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Astor, John	Biggs-Davison, John	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Awdry, Daniel	Black, Sir Cyril	Bryan, Paul
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Blaker, Peter	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Bullus, Sir Eric
Batsford, Brian	Body, Richard	Burden, F. A.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Campbell, Gordon
Bell, Ronald	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Carlisle, Mark
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Braine, Bernard	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Berry Hn. Anthony	Brewis, John	Cary, Sir Robert

Channon, H. P. G.	Holland, Philip	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hooson, Emlyn	Pink, R. Bonner
Clark, Henry	Hordern, Peter	Pounder, Rafton
Clegg, Walter	Hornby, Richard	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cooke, Robert	Howell, David (Guildford)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Corfield, F. V.	Hunt, John	Prior, J. M. L.
Costain, A. P.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pym, Francis
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Iremonger, T. L.	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crouch, David	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Crowder, F. P.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Currie, G. B. H.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dance, James	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Ridsdale, Julian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kershaw, Anthony	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Kimball, Marcus	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Royle, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kirk, Peter	Russell, Sir Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Lambton, Viscount	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Doughty, Charles	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Lane, David	Scott, Nicholas
Drayson, G. B.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Scott-Hopkins, James
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sharpies, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC' dfield)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Silvester, Frederick
Emery, Peter	Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (wirra|)	Sinclair, Sir George
Errington, Sir Eric	Longden, Gilbert	Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L'mington)
Errington, Sir Eric	Lubbock, Eric	Smith, John (London & W' minster)
Farr, John	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Speed, Keith
Fisher, Nigel	MacArthur, Ian	Stainton, Keith
Fletcher, Cooke, Charles	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'rty)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fortescue, Tim	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stodart, Anthony
Foster, Sir John	Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McMaster, Stanley	Tapsell, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gibson-Watt, David	Maddan, Martin	Taylor, Edward M. (G' gow, Cathcart)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Maginnis, John E.	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Glyn, Sir Richard	Marten, Neil	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Maude, Angus	Tilney, John
Goodhart, Philip	Mawby, Ray	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Goodhew, Victor	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gower, Raymond	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Grant, Anthony	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Grant-Ferris, R.	Miscampbell, Norman	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Gresham Cooke, R.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Grieve, Percy	Monro, Hector	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Montgomery, Fergus	Walters, Dennis
Gurden, Harold	More, Jasper	Webster David
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Murton, Oscar	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Neave, Airey	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul	Onslow, Cranley	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hay, John	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Woodnutt, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Worsley, Marcus
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wright, Esmond
Heseltine, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Wylie, N. R.
Higgins, Terence L.	Pardoe, John	Younger, Hn. George
Hiley, Joseph	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Hill, J. E. B.	Peel, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hirst, Geoffrey	Percival, Ian	Mr. Timothy Kitson and
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Peyton, John	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Clause added to the Bill.