§ DECISION ON APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS
§ Mr. Carmichael
I beg to move Amendment No. 282, in page 98, line 24, leave out ' the applicant satisfies the authority ' and insert ' satisfied '.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 283.
§ Mr. Carmichael
These amendments carry out the undertaking given by the Minister of State in Committee that the Government would introduce amendments to make it crystal clear that both sides have to try to prove their case when a quantity licence application is being heard. Their effect is to remove the requirement that, in order to get a licence, the applicant must satisfy the licensing authority that rail carriage for the goods concerned would be less advantageous in terms of speed, reliability and cost, and to substitute the requirement that the licensing authority must be so satisfied.
The Amendments thus make clear beyond doubt what has always been the intention—that both parties to a hearing must make their cases in some detail before the licensing authority makes up its mind. The applicant's situation will be, as the Minister of State said in Committee, that he must… show, if he can, how the service offered by the railways, as to both price and quality, cannot meet the circumstances of his case. If he can demonstrate that to the licensing autho- 1870 rity, his application will be granted."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 23rd April, 1968, c. 2690.]Equally there is an obligation on the objectors to make out a substantial case to back up their objection. If they do not, the licensing authority may grant the application.
This also ties up with the point made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) when he used the word "frivolous", although he added that that was not quite the right word. This clears up the point that frivolous objections will not be sustained.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
This Amendment goes some way towards meeting the strong representations which we made in Committee. The Minister, in his last speech in the Committee before the Guillotine fell on this section, said that these changes would be made. So far as they improve the position to some extent, we welcome them.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further amendment made: No. 283, in page 98, line 29, [Clause 70], leave out
' the applicant satisfies the authority' and insert 'satisfied'.—[Mr. Carmichael]
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move Amendment No. 284, in page 98, line 32, after ' aforesaid ' to insert:' and subject to subsection (3A) of. this section'.Perhaps it will be convenient if we discuss Amendments Nos. 284 and 287 together. They are very important. I believe they demonstrate that we have paid the utmost attention to criticisms made during the Committee stage of the Bill and have endeavoured, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), to meet certain other points. Those who were on the Committee or who have studied its proceedings will know that we there had a lengthy discussion about the pattern of operations in the road haulage industry and, in particular, about the subject of back loading in relation to controlled journeys, and about arguments or disputes before a licensing authority when applications came before it.
I know that ever since these proposals were produced, and ever since the Bill 1871 was published, we have frequently been accused of writing into the Bill a preference for the railways. It has often been argued to me that there was a built-in bias in favour of the railways in the terms of the quantity licensing system. Hon. Members will also know that I have frequently stated that we have made the case that disputes as to whether certain traffic should go by road or rail for a distance over 100 miles were to be judged objectively in relation to speed, reliability and cost. But certain problems were raised, quite rightly, on Standing Committee, which concerned the nature of the operations of the road transport industry.
In these Amendments we have endeavoured to meet the case that was put forward in order to demonstrate that it was not our intention that there should be a built-in preference for the railways in the system but that cases should be judged objectively. I am assuming in what I am saying that hon. Gentlemen are acquainted with the nature of the discussion we had on Standing Committee. These Amendments require the licensing authority, where he finds that under Clause 70(2) he would refuse an application from a road haulier, to grant it nevertheless, if he is satisfied, first, that the rail service would be equally advantageous to the consignor as carriage by road, that is, he is satisfied that the two services are on a par and that the difference between the two is only marginal, and secondly, that refusal of the application would result in serious detriment to some other person, not necessarily concerned with the application or the controlled journey in dispute before the licensing authority; that it would be disadvantageous, say, because of the inability of the road haulier, if application were refused, to pick up a backload or to undertake a certain pattern of journeys.
Hon. Gentlemen will see that this was a difficult point and in relation to these Amendments I gave an undertaking on Clause 67 in Committee that we would study the point and endeavour to meet it. The undertaking which I then gave appears in cols. 2691 to 2694 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, should hon. Gentlemen wish to refer to it. We made it quite clear that, where a licensing authority 1872 judged that the National Freight Corporation or the Railways Board had made out a superior case in terms of speed, reliability and cost, the application should be refused and the goods should be carried by rail; but we now say that if there is a marginal case or an even balance between the claims of road and rail transport and the applicant can show that other consignors would be detrimentally affected by the refusal of his application, it would then be right for the licensing authority to take those effects into account and to grant the application under consideration.
This provides, therefore, that in such marginal cases licensing authorities shall be instructed to take these indirect effects into account. It provides that my right hon. Friend shall issue regulations to licensing authorities making clear what we mean by "serious detriment" to the interests of other consignors and it provides for the licensing authorities to take into account the factor of back loads when those authorities are concerned with such marginal cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and others who spoke on this issue in the course of Committee stage, although they may not agree with some of these general points, will feel that we have gone sufficiently far to meet them and I hope that they will see that this is evidence that we have grappled with this particular problem and have endeavoured to meet it. We have somewhat shifted the balance of judgment on the part of the licensing authority in the consideration of a number of cases. I would hope, therefore, that these Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
§ Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)
Clearly, the Government have tried to meet the points we raised in Standing Committee and therefore we welcome these Amendments, but we say they have not gone quite far enough. Our Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 would seek to go a good deal further. I would like to comment on what the Minister of State has said. As I understand the effect of the Bill as drawn, it is twofold. First, if an applicant's service is less advantageous than the objector's his application fails. That is fair enough. But secondly, if the applicant's service is equally as good as the objector's but no 1873 better, then he fails. We on this side do not consider that this is fair. We do not feel that it is right that the dice should be loaded against the applicant. We feel that if the applicant can show that his service is as good as the objector's he should be given special authorisation.
The Minister of State said that this matter had been fully argued in Standing Committee and that the Government have now come forward with the concession in Amendment No. 287. That is clearly a step in the right direction, and we welcome it. The Government admit, therefore, that where there are rival claims between the private operator and the objector and those claims are level, and the applicant can show that real hardship would be caused to him, in those circumstances he gets the benefit of the doubt. We feel that on any occasion if he can show that his service is as good as the objector's he should get the benefit of the doubt.
Our Amendment No. 286 reflects our belief that if such a dispute takes place between the citizen and the State or the private operator and a nationalised industry and there is any doubt, the onus should in that case be on the objector and not the citizen. That is why in Amendment No. 286 we were to seek to make quite certain that the onus of proof remains throughout on the objector. We believe a fundamental principle is involved here. We are still anxious to get on to the very important Amendments still to be discussed before Six o'clock and therefore I shall not move Amendments 285 and 286, and we certainly accept the Amendment which the Government have moved.
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
On a point of order. I have risen to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, three times this afternoon and so far I have been unsuccessful.
§ Mr. Huckfield
I thank the Minister of State for these Amendments because they go a long way to meet some of my objections to this part of the Bill. But, since hon. Members opposite have provided such poor opposition on this matter, the main opposition will have 1874 to come from me. Despite the Amendments, which I welcome, if we are to be able to consider licensing applications on the basis of cost, speed and reliability only in cases of marginal balance, I would have thought that we should consider these other factors in all applications.
This is the present system and the one which I would, basically, like to continue. In the 1933 Act the onus of proof was on the applicant. In the 1953 Act, it was shifted to the objector. It now seems to be coming to lie somewhere between the two. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for these Amendments, which go in the direction that I would like, but I should still have liked the burden of proof shifted back to the objector, because it is for him to prove that an applicant cannot provide the services which he feels that he can provide. However, since this is, I assume, the only concession which we shall extract from my hon. Friend, I am willing to accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: No. 287, in page 98, line 44, at end insert:
(3A) If in the case of the whole or any part of the disputed service the licensing authority is not satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the authority shall nevertheless grant the application in respect of the disputed service or of any part of it if satisfied—
§ No. 288, in page 98, line 42, leave out ' subsection (3)' and insert ' subsection(3) ad (3A)(a)'—[Mr.Swingler.]
§ Mr. G. Campbell
I beg to move Amendment No. 289, in page 98, line 42 after ' cost', insert:' and all other relevant factors including suitability, flexibility, convenience, frequency of 1875 delivery, availability at short notice, risks of damage or contamination, provision for insurance of the goods to be carried and the cost and nature of packing required for alternative services'.This is a very important Amendment and I am glad that, even under the Guillotine, we have reached it on Report, although we had no hope of doing so in Committee. It relates to the criteria on which the licensing authorities must make these difficult judgments. We propose other important criteria which should be taken into account in various cases. The Government's criteria are simply speed, reliability and cost, which are not easy to establish or compare and will give the licensing authorities an unenviable task, but the innumerable different decisions on the choice of transport which firms must take are governed by many other factors.
It would never be possible to write in all the factors which various businesses have to take into account, or the weight to be attached to them, because these are different for different kinds of business. This part of the Bill affects businesses running goods in their own vehicles; it is not simply a matter for the road haulage industry, but concerns a wide range of trade and industry using transport, which may be their own.
The Amendment pinpoints some of the criteria which should be considered, and the basic dilemma. In moving the last Amendment, the Minister of State spoke of quantity licensing affecting journeys of over 100 miles, but another part of the system, which is being overlooked, is that covering bulk loads of certain commodities to be prescribed. We have had one list, including clay and iron and steel, and so on, but we do not know how many other commodities will be prescribed. These commodities cannot be carried over any distance, without a special authorisation, and there is no question of 100 miles there. These judgments will cover that side of quantity licensing as well.
So far, the Government's attitude to additional criteria has been that, if other factors were included and the scope of inquiry extended, the system would be unworkable. But this confirms our objection to this part of the Bill, which is shared by the hon. Member for 1876 Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and other hon. Members opposite, that a fair system, taking in all the points affecting our economy, would be unworkable. So it must be either unworkable or unfair.
If the Government are to take the alternative of giving wide and full discretion to the licensing authorities without criteria, they could leave it to the authorities to decide in any case. But then, in practically every case, the authorities would simply have to endorse the decisions taken by firms, since, if those firms were well-informed about the latest freightliner and railway developments, as they should be, their decisions would be right and would have to be endorsed.
This is the dilemma—that, with full discretion given to the licensing authority, the system would be unnecessary since they would endorse firms' decisions, and alternatively, if criteria are written in, the whole process of transport used by trade and industry would be restricted and stultified. But if the Government insist on criteria, they should not leave it at these three. The criteria in the Amendment are not exhaustive—I have said that that would be impossible—but they illustrate some other important points which should be considered.
I therefore hope that the Government will consider again whether any criteria should be written in, and that, if they are written in, these will be included. The Amendment raises the main point that quantity licensing is utterly unnecessary and will simply cause delays and damage to trade and industry because they will be unable to take quick decisions on the best form of transport for each case.
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
I have put down a similar Amendment, No. 567, which unfortunately has not been called, but I express similar concern to that of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I have always felt that to ask a licensing authority to decide on the basis of three factors severely restricted it, particularly when we shall be dealing in future with all sorts of vehicle operators who have been running their own transport, and, therefore, with a new range of factors which are not quantifiable
Many of these operators operate their own vehicles because they like to see the 1877 firm's name on the van. Many do so because they like to preserve good customer relations. Many do so because they like to have hire-and-fire control of the drivers. Many do so for a whole range of similar reasons which cannot be quantified or subsumed under these three headings. I would have thought that the licensing authority should be given power to take into consideration more than cost, reliability and speed. I do not quite agree with the Amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman. Even giving the licensing authority that slightly wider range of factors to consider will restrict it in some considerations. I would have preferred the approach I have suggested to permit the licensing authority to take into account anything which it is felt should be considered. I feel a great deal of sympathy, and I hope my hon. Friend can make some concession in this direction.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Sutton Coldfield)
This is the most important Amendment to this part of the Bill, because it is vital to the successful and efficient operation of British industry, particularly the export section. It is disgraceful that the powerful case in favour of this Amendment cannot be fully employed from this side of the House, although we are grateful for the support we have had from hon. Gentlemen.
I press my case from the point of view of the motor industry in the Midlands, our largest exporter. Some years ago I was in the Longbridge motor factory in order to see the new improvements in efficiency that had been introduced since I had been before, and in the assembly shop it was pointed out to me that radiators being fitted into the cars were no longer held in stock by the company to the tune of locking up something like £500,000 but were coming continuously by road on a schedule from the makers. Sir George Harriman said, "You see, the road system is part of the flow-line of the factory". The continuous delivery of radiators was being timed in with the mechanical system bringing bodies and engines, so it needed flexibility to be reduced or increased.
This applies also to electrical equipment from Lucas's, with whom I have recently been in touch, and also to castings and to the road springs from Sheffield. This applies not only to Birming- 1878 ham but also to the Rootes' factory at Lindwood in Scotland and the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate in Scotland to which many components must go up from the West Midlands or from Sheffield. It also applies to Dagenham. The point I want to make is that speed reliability and cost are not enough; flexibility is vital.
One final example with regard to these components. In Dagenham, for instance, these schedules run three-hourly or hour by hour. This method can be practised by the road industry to fit in with the production cycle of a factory. If suddenly there is a demand for a new model to be exported, as often happens with Ford's, a telephone call goes through that they want immediately to speed up the delivery of components in the Birmingham area. How is that going to happen? It is disgraceful to put the transport managers of our great industrial concerns in this position.
§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill
I want strongly to support this Amendment. I am sure it is vital in a wider sphere even than the motor industry. Steel has been mentioned as one of the commodities that cannot go any distance except by authorisation, steel that is going to make machinery for export may arrive damaged and cannot be used. That surely should be altered to allow these facts to be taken into consideration.
§ Mr. Carmichael
This question was very well ventilated in the Committee stage and my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a number of assurances on factors of this kind.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
But we did not reach anywhere near this Clause in Committee. Any discussion could only be brought in in passing on other points.
§ Mr. Carmichael
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) knows that I joined the Committee rather late, nevertheless it seemed to me to have been one of the main topics all the time I was in the Committee. I know from what I have heard that my hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the matter in the debate on Clause 67. The Minister of State gave assurances that factors of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn would be comprised in the regulations which the Minister is empowered to make regarding speed, reliability and cost, and I do 1879 not think I could do better than quote from the speech of my hon. Friend on 23rd April. He said:It is our intention that these criteria should be interpreted very broadly indeed. For example, if the goods are fragile and if it is established that there is greater risk of breakages on the railways, that is a perfectly proper point for the licensing authority to consider. If packaging or insurance for rail are more costly than for road, that is a relevant consideration under these criteria. If the applicant represents that the rail service operates only at fixed intervals whereas road vehicles can be made available at short and irregular intervals thus obviating the need for maintaining large stocks, the licensing authority will be able to take account of these facts in assessing the considerations of speed and cost."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 23rd April, 1968; c. 2691.]This clearly answers the points made by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke about radiators moving back and forth. But the motor industry also uses railways to an extent. I know that a train leaves Dagenham every evening and goes to Liverpool carrying engines and radiators. All we are concerned about here is that the question of speed, reliability and cost should be interpreted in the spirit that the Bill intends and with the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee in which he almost spelt out the points made by the right hon. Member.
§ Mr. Bessell
The point that was being made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) is
§ that it is not a question of speed, cost and reliability but also a question of flexibility because of emergencies that arise.
§ Mr. Carmichael
The hon. Member has not listened very carefully. I did say that if the applicant represents that the rail service operates only at fixed intervals whereas road services can be made available at short and irregular intervals thus obviating the need for maintaining large stocks, the licensing authority will be able to take account of these factors.
Neither the mover of the Amendment nor the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who spoke, including my hon. Friend supporting the other side on this occasion, said anything that made me feel that this Amendment was any more acceptable now than it was in Committee when my hon. Friend made the statement which I have just read.
§ Mr. Peter Walker
Every word spoken by Ministers on quantity licensing proves the absurdity of the system. The thought of these tribunals discussing things which could better be decided by the transport managers shows that the Government's objection is to restrict and handicap, and certainly I urge my hon. Friends to divide.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 260.1883
|Division No. 194.]||AYES||[6.0 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Bryan, Paul||Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M)||Emery, Peter|
|Astor, John||Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Errington, Sir Eric|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Bullus, Sir Eric||Eyre, Reginald|
|Awdry, Daniel||Burden, F. A.||Farr, John|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Campbell, Gordon||Fisher, Nigel|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Balniel, Lord||Cary, Sir Robert||Fortescue, Tim|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Chichester-Clark, R.||Foster, Sir John|
|Batsford, Brian||Clark, Henry||Fraser, Rt. Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Clegg, Walter||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.|
|Bell, Ronald||Cooke, Robert||Gibson-watt, David|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Corfield, F. V.||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)|
|Bessell, Peter||Costain, A. P.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Biffen, John||Crouch, David||Glyn, Sir Richard|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Growder, F. P.||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Goodhart, Philip|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Currie, G. B. H.||Goodhew, Victor|
|Body, Richard||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gower, Raymond|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)||Grant, Anthony|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt, Hn. John||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Braine, Bernard||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Grieve, Percy|
|Brewis, John||Doughty, Charles||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Drayson, G. B.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Eden, Sir John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Bruce-Cardyne, J.||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Maddan, Martin||Scott, Nicholas|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maginnis, John E.||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Sharples, Richard|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Marten, Neil||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Hastings, Stephen||Maude, Angus||Silvester, Frederick|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mawby, Ray||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hay, John||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Smith, John (London & W'minster)|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Miscampbell, Norman||Speed, Keith|
|Heseltine, Michael||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Stainton, Keith|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Montgomery, Fergus||Stodart, Anthony|
|Hiley, Joseph||More, Jasper||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Mott-Radcly ffe, Sir Charles||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Holland, Philip||Murton, Oscar||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Gathcart)|
|Hordern, Peter||Neave, Airey||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Hornby, Richard||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Teeling, Sir William|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Nobel, Rt. Hn. Michael||Temple, John M.|
|Hunt, John||Nott, John||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Onslow, Cranley||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Orr, Capt, L. P. S.||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Pardoe, John||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Kerby, Capt. Henry||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Peel, John||Wall, Patrick|
|Kimball, Marcus||Percival, Ian||Walters, Dennis|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Peyton, John||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Kirk, Peter||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Webster, David|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Pink, R. Bonner||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Pounder, Rafton||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Williams, Donald (Dudley)|
|Lane, David||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Prior, J. M. L.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pym, Francis||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut"nC'dfield)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Lubbock, Eric||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Worsley, Marcus|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wylie, N. R.|
|MacArthur, Ian||Ridsdale, Julian||Younger, Hn. George|
|Mackenzie, Aiasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain||Royle, Anthony||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|McMaster, Stanley||Russell, Sir Roland||Mr. Timothy Kitson.|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Abse, Leo||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Driberg, Tom|
|Albu, Austen||Cant, R. B.||Dunn, James A.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Carmichael, Neil||Dunnett, Jack|
|Alldritt, Walter||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)|
|Anderson, Donald||Chapman, Donald||Eadie, Alex|
|Archer, Peter||Coe, Denis||Edelman, Maurice|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Coleman, Donald||Edwards, William (Merioneth)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Concannon, J. D.||Ellis, John|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Conlan, Bernard||English, Michael|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Ennals, David|
|Barnes, Michael||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Ensor, David|
|Barnett, Joel||Crawshaw, Richard||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Bence, Cyril||Cronin, John||Faulds, Andrew|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Binns, John||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Foley, Maurice|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dalyell, Tam||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Blackburn, F.||Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Forrester, John|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Fowler, Gerry|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Galpern, sir Myer|
|Boyden, James||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Gardner, Tony|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Bradley, Tom||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Gourlay, Harry|
|Brooks, Edwin||Delargy, Hugh||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Dell, Edmund||Gregory, Arnold|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dempsey, James||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Dewar, Donald||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Buchan, Norman||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dickens, James||Hamling, William|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Dobson, Ray||Hannan, William|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Doig, Peter||Harper, Joseph|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mackintosh, John P.||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Haseldine, Norman||Maclennan, Robert||Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)|
|Hattersley, Roy||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Robinson, W. O. J, (Walth'stow, E.)|
|Henig, Stanley||McNamara, J. Kevin||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Hooley, Frank||MacPherson, Malcolm||Roebuck, Roy|
|Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)|
|Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.|
|Howie, W.||Mallalieu, J. P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Hoy, James||Manuel, Archie||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Marks, Kenneth||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)||Marquand, David||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Slater, Joseph|
|Hunter, Adam||Maxwell, Robert||Small, William|
|Hynd, John||Mayhem, Christopher||Snow, Julian|
|Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Mendelson, J. J.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Millan, Bruce||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Swain, Thomas|
|Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n & St.P' cras, S.)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Hoy (Stechford)||Moyle, Roland||Taverne, Dick|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Neal, Harold||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Newens, Stan||Thomson, Rt. Hn. George|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Thornton, Ernest|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Norwood, Chistopher||Tinn, James|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Ogden, Eric||Tomney, Frank|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||O'Malley, Brian||Urwin, T. W.|
|Judd, Frank||Oram, Albert E.||Varley, Eric G.|
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Orme, Stanley||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Oswald, Thomas||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Lawson George||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Ledger, Ron||Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Lee, John (Reading)||Paget, R. T.||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Palmer, Arthur||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Whitlock, William|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Park, Trevor||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Willis, Rt. Hn. George|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Pentland, Norman||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Winnick, David|
|McBride, Neil||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|McCann, John||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Woof, Robert|
|MacColl, James||Probert, Arthur||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|MacDermot, Niall||Randall, Harry||Yates, Victor|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Rankin, John|
|McGuire, Michael||Bees, Merlyn||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Reynolds, G. W.||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Mr. loan L. Evans.|
|Mackie, John||Richard, Ivor|
§ It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.
§ Amendments made: No. 290, in page 98, line 43, leave out from 'authority' to 'shall' in line 45.
No. 291, in page 99, line 2, at end insert:
(4A) In assessing the detriment mentioned in subsection (3A)(b) of this section and the factors mentioned in subsection (4) of this section the licensing authority shall act in accordance with any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister.
§ No. 293, in page 99, line 27, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]