§ [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
§ Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [28th May], on consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Which Amendment was: No. 265, in page 94, line 34, at end insert—
(4) A journey shall not be a controlled Journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if theer are no railway lines which could undertake any part of that journey.
§ Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Speaker
I have again posted up my selections. There is one change only. I understand that this morning we were debating Amendment No. 265 and with it Amendments Nos. 266, 267 and 272.
Amendment No. 265 had been moved by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and was being debated. Mr. Buchanan-Smith.
§ Mr. Alec Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns) rose—
§ Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeen, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking this morning.
§ Mr. Speaker
I apologise. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was interrupted.
§ Mr. Davidson
I was addressing my remarks, in particular, to Amendment No. 272, which is included in this group, which says:Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail.I had been pointing out that certain articles are exceedingly unsuitable for transport by rail and expressing the hope that the Minister would give us some idea of the kind of instructions he will be issuing on this particular matter. I also hoped that in certain cases manufacturers would not be obliged to send by rail articles of particular value.
1836 I would like to cite the case of a textile mill which dispatches very valuable high-quality knitwear. The firm used to send all its dispatch by rail, but it has stopped doing so following a whole series of pilfering incidents. The mill found it was losing so much of its goods on British Railways that it eventually withdrew all its traffic from the railway and has since sent by road.
§ Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire) rose—
§ Mr. Davidson
I hope that until proper measures can be taken to prevent any such pilfering or alternatively to ensure that any losses are fully recompensed, no firms will be obliged to send goods by rail if it is more convenient and more economical to send them by road.
§ Mr. Manuel
I reject the hon. Member's attempt to malign railway workers by his allegation about pilfering. Is he aware that even whole lorries go missing when travelling by road and very often this blame could be laid on forces outside railway workers altogether?
§ Mr. Davidson rose—
§ Mr. Manuel
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me and he must take his medicine.
Is he aware that goods now sent by knitwear firms would be container traffic, and would be loaded from door to door and on to rail with no possibility of pilfering by railwaymen or anyone else, since the goods would be in sealed containers? The hon. Gentleman is talking of something that happened 20 years ago. He is completely out of date and does not know anything about railway working.
§ Mr. Davidson
I would like to reply to the allegations made against me.
§ Mr. Speaker
We are on Report stage and the hon. Gentleman can only make one speech on it.
§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The kind of medicine supplied by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is very much the kind we expect and have been treated to many times during the course of the year.
I support the Amendment and wish to raise a specific point which affects farmers 1837 and particularly fruit and flower growers. As the Under-Secretary knows, I have raised this matter with him and it has been raised in direct representations. Perhaps I could have his attention. I see that he is now leaving. I am sure that the Minister of State, who previously dealt with this as Parliamentary Secretary and who has since been elevated to the office of Minister of State, will have full knowledge of the representations which were made. These matters were raised by Perth and Angus fruit growers, who made direct representations to the Minister of Transport. I followed the matter up at Question Time some weeks ago.
There is very genuine concern among farmers and particularly among potato, fruit and flower growers, about the effect of the Bill in relation to the use they make of the railways. They are very happy to use the railways when they get correct service. Unfortunately, there have been one or two unhappy experiences recently, particularly in relation to potatoes, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perth (Mr. MacArthur), will also have had experience, where, because of the good rates quoted by British Railways, farmers consigned seed potatoes to England by rail only to find that British Railways did not have sufficient wagons to cope with the trade.
I use that example as showing that where the railways are prepared to offer a commercial competitive service there is no prejudice among people against using British Railways and that where there is a perfectly fair and commercial proposition farmers and fruit growers are prepared to use British Railways' services. But recently, in relation to seed potatoes—
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must make his comments to the Amendment within certain specified limitations.
§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I am using the example to illustrate to hon. Members opposite, who sometimes criticise us for being prejudiced people in this regard, which we are not, that there is a genuine desire to use British Railways where the service is right.
The problem I particularly want to raise relates to areas where stations have 1838 been closed, and this refers directly to Amendment 265. In my area we have a main railway line which passes through an area where a number of stations have been closed so that the number of points to which farmers can take seed potatoes, fruit and flowers for dispatch by rail are much more limited. They may have to go a considerably greater distance in carrying produce to the rail head.
Until now, in certain places they have been able to use ordinary farm tractors and trailers to take their goods direct to the station but now that certain stations are closed and other depots have been set up at a greater distance it is not practicable for them to use such forms of farm transport to take their goods to the rail head. This may mean that they have to acquire a lorry if they are to use the railways or may have to have their goods handled by a third party, through another contractor or by British Railways lorries. This introduces a completely fresh operation into their work in consigning goods to market.
I would like to ask the Minister of State, therefore, what is the position where this situation exists, even though there is a main railway line available and there are depots within reasonable distance to which farmers can take their produce? What happens if, in future, it is to be inconvenient to them to do so and they are unable to use their own farm transport in the form of tractors? Will they still have to send their produce by rail, or will they be able just as easily to use road transport for the whole journey in place of the railways? This is a genuine problem which has arisen and there have been representations on it by many people. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say on this Amendment.
§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles)
I intervene only briefly to seek clarification on a point on broken journeys which are partly over water. I appreciate that on the proposals for the exclusion of certain areas we have the Minister's wording:The carriage of goods within and between offshore islands having no rail connection with the mainlandThis would include all the Scottish islands and the Isle of Wight, but would exclude Anglesey and the Isle of Sheppey. I 1839 believe that this is in order, Mr. Speaker, but I have some slight doubts about it.
§ Mr. Speaker
I have not interrupted the hon. Gentleman yet.
§ Mr. MacMillan
The question I wish to ask is whether in this exclusion we are limited to within and between offshore islands. I would have liked to see the words "to and from" offshore islands. We have had a lot of debate on this point. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee, but early in the history of the Bill I had correspondence with the previous Minister and discussions with a number of Ministries; and it has never been made clear whether this is meant as referring to a physical rail connection with the mainland. Clarification would be helpful.
"Journeys" would have to include those from the mainland to the island and vice versa. I know of loads starting on Stornoway in the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, travelling 35 miles to the ferry point in Tarbert on the same island and then crossing 35 miles of water by MacBrayne's ferry, which will be virtually a State service in future. They then have to cross the Isle of Skye for 55 miles, then go on the ferry from Kyle Akin to the Kyle of Lochalsh. Then, for the first time they meet the railway. This is what I mean by the broken journey.
It is clear that journeys on the islands, between them and among them, are completely excluded, but we would like to know that this will cover something more than a physical rail connection by bridge. This should be precisely stated to relieve many doubts in the Islands.
The people there are concerned, too, in the carriage of considerable loads on MacBrayne's ferries. I understand from the company that loads of 21 or 22 tons can be and are carried. It is doubly important because, by reason of the distances, the cost of living is affected by every use of transport. If one had to break down from road to rail transport on these journeys, that could be economically disastrous for the people and the communities concerned.
I hope that the Minister can give a clear answer. I have discussed this many times in correspondence with his colleagues. There are already sufficient 1840 complications for the occasionally appalling service which we get from MacBrayne's in the carriage of goods. I am not talking about passenger or private car carriage but when it comes to carriage of goods from other parts of the country from Leith, Glasgow or England to Stornaway, we often have the utmost difficulty in getting deliveries or even getting assurances about deliveries. There is enough discontent and reason for it now without complicating it unduly by the imposition of further uneconomic burdens on an area which already suffers these considerable burdens.
If I can have an assurance on these matters, most people would be satisfied that the Bill as a whole is excellent in its general application and purpose.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to say whether or not it is an excellent Bill.
§ Mr. MacMillan
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was emphasising that this is the main complaint which relates to my constituency. Otherwise, I have not received a single complaint from my constituency—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] It is absolutely true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not doubt this. I should like to have the assurance which I have sought.
§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
I follow the point of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about the horticultural trades, but, to a limited extent, I take issue with him. The horticultural trades in Scotland use the railways wherever possible because a long haul suits them, but the pattern of English horticulture is tending to move away from places near rail centres and has been based largely on two factors. The first is the delivery to the main markets by road and the second is the move to coastal areas, where they have the maximum light efficiency, following the Dutch example.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in a previous debate, touched on the lack of prosperity which would result for his horticultural constituents if the Bill were forced through un-amended. I draw the Minister's attention to the horticultural point of view as 1841 affected by Amendment No. 266, which says that a journey should not be a controlled journey if the distance of the starting point and the destination from railway terminals means a difficult journey.
The Covent Garden Market and the other main markets which are supported by the Government through the Ministry of Agriculture have no rail terminal facilities. I am aware that the new, much delayed, market at Nine Elms will have rail facilities, but they will be primarily from the coast and will, therefore, help the importer rather than the British horticulturist. If the Minister does not accept these Amendments, or at least No. 266, he will seriously affect the price of all British fruit and vegetables.
Flowers are another matter, since they could be called a luxury, but they are gaining popularity. Without falling into the error of the hon. Member for West Lothian ('Mr. Dalyell), I can say that there has been much evidence before the Select Committee on Agriculture's Sub-Committee to the effect that road transport is the key to marketing. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will sympathetically consider the effect of this provision on the price of vegetables and fruit.
Amendment No. 272 contains the phrase, "by reasons of weight or size". I hope that that will be interpreted to mean small as well as large, since many consignments of flowers may be fairly bulky, although light, and unsuitable for rail transport. I hope that the Amendments will be accepted or that, in another place, a similar concept can be written into the Bill, even at that late stage.
Another point on Amendment No. 272 is that the high-quality paper industry, of which there are a number of mills in my constituency, is totally unwilling to consign high quality papers by rail because of the damage and dirt which results. I heard what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said in riposte to the hon. Member for Aber-deenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), but even now, in 1968, the mills are not prepared to send high quality paper by rail, because if one sheet in a consignment is damaged, the whole lot is damaged. I therefore hope that high quality goods will not be forced on to 1842 the railways, which are unsuitable for them.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Manuel
That would come within the container wrapping services. The railways would not be interested in traffic such as knitwear goods.
§ Mr. Wells
They are interested. The mills in my constituency have consigned these goods to them and have regretted it. They do not want to do it again. Therefore, I hope that there will be no compulsion brought to bear by the Minister of State.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
This group of Amendments have a superficial attraction which did not characterise the previous Amendment dealing with a similar point. The attractiveness and logic stem from the exception which the Government have already made in the case of the islands. One agrees that there should be a geographical criterion of this kind applied, and the scope for obtaining this attraction is almost limitless.
In the case of my own constituency which was canvassed during the Committee stage, there has been an argument advanced by the Highlands and Islands Development Board that a geographical exception should be made on the lines of Amendment 267. As there was not a full opportuntiy to answer the case that has been made by the Highlands and Islands Development Board at an earlier stage of this Bill for a geographical exception along those lines, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportuntiy provided by this short debate to set at rest any remaining fears which there may be of the effect of the quantity licensing provisions upon those parts of the country which are remote from rail heads.
It seems to me clear that the provisions in the later Section 70 establish the criteria on which objections will be upheld, and completely set at rest any fears that the important industries in those areas, particularly the fishing industry, will be put at some disadvantage by virtue of the quantity licensing provisions.
It is clear that in the case of ports situated more than 30 miles from a rail head it will be impossible for British 1843 Railways to establish that even if they were not interested in doing so, which is inconceivable in the light of British Railways in this field. It would be impossible for them to establish that it was not to the advantage of the consigner.
§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)
Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with my suggestion in Amendment No. 265, which I moved, that in these circumstances it would be best to relieve such business from the procedure of an application and waiting for the answer if such applications are always to be granted?
§ Mr. Maclennan
If applications are always to be granted automatically—and presumably the hon. Gentleman assumes that this is so—this is a fact which businesses will take into account and plan accordingly.
The disadvantages of accepting the geographical principle are that it would still require evaluation of the facts by some body, whether it be the Minister or the licensing authority, to determine whether or not, in the circumstances, the applicant came within the geographical limitation. Consequently, I cannot see that any time would be saved, as it would have to establish that it fell within the scope of the exception referred to in the Amendments.
These points have all be elaborately debated earlier, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make it clear beyond peradventure that industries established in remoter parts will not be disadvantaged because of objection by British Railways or any other authority to the issue of quantity licensing.
§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)
On Amendment No. 265, we in the South-West, particularly in the remoter areas, are in a dilemma. Many people who produce milk and meat would like to send them by rail, but it is not always possible as large areas of North and West Devon and North Cornwall are without any rail heads. Therefore, it is difficult for them, as I believe would be right, to transfer some of their heavy loads on to the railways.
In the past, when it has been possible to send milk and meat by rail, the general 1844 service given by the railways has been sadly lacking, which is one reason why people have gone away from this form of transport. It is extraordinary that while there is a desire to transfer some heavy loads back to the railways again, at the moment coal and clay are being allowed in, but we cannot send milk and meat out. It is extraordinary that British Railways have liner trains, even in our area, to bring in coal and clay, but we cannot send out milk or meat. It is just one-way traffic. This shows some fault with British Railways and the service they are giving.
It seems to me that this Amendment is entirely right. In the very remote areas in which some of us live it is not possible to carry out what one would like to do. I support this Amendment.
§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)
I hope that the Minister will look at these Amendments sympathetically. I would ask him especially to consider the position in Scotland, where real problems of distance confront many small enterprises in remote areas. I have several industries and trades in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and other hon. Members have spoken about the difficulties which confront the soft-fruit industry. In my constituency, I have a substantial raspberry-growing industry, which, at present, makes substantial use of the railways.
The industry spreads into the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and other neighbouring constituencies, and there use is made of the Strathmore railway line. The passenger service has been closed down and I assume that the freight service is under a cloud, also. What would be the position under this Clause if the railway service were to be withdrawn? I trust that the Minister will bear matters of this kind in mind when considering the Amendment.
This type of business is one which is very susceptible to climate and delay. In the case of a highly-perishable product, if there is any delay at all markets will be lost and the consignments could well be ruined. I tremble to think of the delays which would accompany the bureaucratic procedures which this Clause introduces.
1845 Similar difficulties would apply to the seed potato trade, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned. Seed potato growers have made enormous use of the railway service, as the managers were most helpful to them. Here again, the local railway line is under threat. What will their position be under the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted?
An alternative means of transport must be available for the potato trade. There must be a choice, because often potato traders have found that, through no fault of the local railway organisataion, the wagons they require for the dispatch of seed potatoes have not been available because of a muddle or confusion further down the line. Wagons were not available because of, for example, the London dock strike, for which the railway authorities can hardly be blamed.
If a seed potato merchant finds that wagons are not available, he must, under the Clause without the Amendment, go through the procedure of writing to the road licensing authority to get special authorisation to dispatch his consignment of potatoes by road—this probably at a time of the year when they are susceptible to frost damage. How long will this cumbersome, bureaucratic procedure take to complete?
What will be the position of a small building contractor such as one in my constituency who carries out many small building projects throughout Scotland and sends his materials by road? Will he be obliged to use the railways? He would escape the imposition of the Clause as drafted if the Amendment were accepted. What will be the position of special loads? I recently wrote to the Minister about the transportation of caravans. A firm in my constituency despatches caravans to various parts of the country on large trailers. It is clear that this is not the type of load for the railways, and I assume that the firm would escape the provision. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance on the matter.
What concerns my constituents as much as anything is the problem that they will face if they are in country districts some way removed from a rail head and are obliged to use the railways. What will happen if they discover that the railway 1846 service is denied them by the removal of the line, or by the non-appearance of wagons and they are forced to use road traffic, which is the only alternative? This is particularly worrying for those dealing with perishable items or goods which are susceptible to climatic damage, such as seed potatoes. Is the Minister suggesting that people in this position should go through the bureaucratic procedure of writing in for special dispensation to allow them to send their crops by the most obvious means of transport? Is he suggesting that this should be done when delays might occur which might damage those crops by the time the authorisation comes through?
§ Mr. Ronald Atkins (Preston, North)
Some hon. Members, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, are over-fearful about British Railways trying to take over traffic which they cannot carry. It is estimated that the railways can carry 33 per cent. more than they are at present carrying, more efficiently and more cheaply than road transport. This is an enormous increase. It is foolish to assume that the railways will try to capture traffic which they cannot adequately handle, particularly since they can expect to increase their carrying capacity, anyway. It is obvious that the railways will go after that traffic which they are most capable of handling profitably.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Amendment is designed to cover situations where no railways are able to undertake the work?
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Atkins
That would be an obvious example of traffic which is unsuitable for the railways. It is wrong to assume that the railways will want such traffic, or that the licensing authorities will grant it to the railways. After all, are there not a number of safeguards in the Bill? Consider the case of an area which is remote from the railhead.
§ Mr. MacArthur rose—
§ Mr. Atkins
I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to say a few words without interruption. After all, who was responsible for getting rid of railway lines?
§ Mr. Manuel
§ Mr. MacArthur
The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The 1847 Strathmore line, to which I referred, lost its passenger service as a direct result of action taken by the present Government. Moreover, at the last General Election, the Minister of—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have much to debate. Beeching does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. Atkins
I must reply to that intervention and answer the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. MacArthur
It is unanswerable.
§ Mr. Atkins
The running down of the railway services—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Whoever ran down the railways, if they are run down, does not arise on this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Atkins
If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) had been present during our earlier debates, he would have heard the answer to his question.
I was referring to areas which are remote from railheads. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have assumed that, in those circumstances, the railways will not be able to provide an adequate collection and delivery service. Perhaps they will not want to, or perhaps the licensing authority will not want them to. There have been several cases where the railways have rejected traffic of this kind and there have been complaints from farmers as a result of that rejection. In many parts of the country, and particularly in rural areas, farmers send what suits them by road—the profitable stuff—and the rest by rail. It is rather like comparing potatoes with raspberries. Many cases of this kind have occurred in East Anglia.
It should be remembered that the railways are able to provide collection and delivery services. It is interesting to note that when these services have been provided a much more comprehensive system of railway freight, collected and delivered, has been established. There is often a great improvement in the services provided by the railways because of the concentration of goods depots, and this makes for speedy collection and delivery.
I regret that many Opposition Amendments appear to have been tabled with the idea of weakening the principle of 1848 the Bill. I regret it because the principle is the excellent one of improving our transport system. Almost without exception, every Opposition Amendment has not been constructive, but has merely been designed to denigrate this excellent principle. I hope that eventually hon. Gentleman opposite will realise that what the Government are proposing is the only way to put the country's transport system right.
§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)
I hope that the Minister, in considering the Amendments, will give an assurance about highly perishable produce. In horticulture, the time factor is vital. A delay of 24 hours may mean that a crop is completely unsuitable for the market. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) strawberries are grown, which, if they are delayed even for a few hours, lose the top-quality market. However willing the railway manager, and however zealous the railways may be to give a good service, once perishable produce is left at the railhead, no control remains, and delay will result in damage.
§ Mr. Speaker
With respect, we are not seeking to control traffic because of perishable goods. The hon. Member must link his argument to the Amendment which, as he knows, depends on whether there is a railway and how far away it is.
§ Mr. Hill
Timing determines whether or not the railway can be practicable. Even if freightliners are running, they may be useless for certain perishable produce if the timing of the dispatch has to be shorter than the notice of 48 hours which British Railways require for the freightliner service. I hope that the Minister will take into account that if existing road haulage businesses are destroyed, and the railways fail to handle the traffic, there will be no transport at all for perishable produce.
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)
I have been shocked by what I have heard from the benches opposite. It bears no relation to the kind of produce with which we ought to be dealing. The sentiments which have been echoed followed closely along the lines of the campaign which has been conducted by the Road Haulage Association. I intend to take some of the references that have 1849 been made by hon. Gentlemen with exactly the same degree of seriousness as I have taken the campaign—which is none at all.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite want freedom to use the railways when nothing else is available. They wish to have the railways standing by in case their road haulier friends are unable to provide services. The argument is, "Let us have the railways as a common carrier. We do not like them normally, because they happen to be 40 miles away, but we would like them to remain as a fall-back." I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for South Argus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), say this morning that he wished to see a railway line in his constituency closed down.
Hon. Gentlemen know from assurances which have been given in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House during and before the Report stage that, in the areas referred to in the Amendments, the British Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation will not be interested in the largest part of the traffic. They will not have collection and delivery facilities, and they will not be able to carry horticultural produce. My own experience in handling horticultural produce from the Vale of Evesham is that, because of the inability of British Railways and the National Freight Corporation to handle this kind of traffic, they will not show any interest in doing so. Fruit, vegetables and horticultural produce involve small pick-ups and drops, which make it unsuited for the Railways Board or the Corporation.
Apart from this, the hon. Gentlemen cannot even put down the Amendment properly. If they seriously wanted to exclude that kind of traffic, 40 miles is a very bad limit. In parts of Kent, Bedfordshire, the Vale of Evesham, and even in Cornwall, horticultural and agricultural produce is grown within 40 miles from the rail terminal.
Hon. Gentlemen are asking to have the railways as a standby. They know, that if they can keep the railways open in the event of ice and snow, then they can blame the railways for making losses. For these reasons, I urge rejection of the Amendments.
§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I would not have intervened and taken up time on this part of the Bill but for the fact that a considerable amount of 1850 time is being wasted on the other side by Amendments which are completely irrelevant. The Amendments deal with whether there is a railway line, the distance of the starting point and unsuitability.
The Opposition have made great play about the shortage of time to deal with vital aspects of the Bill, but they must be aware that all these points are already covered by the Bill. The Bill provides that there is nothing to hinder a road haulier from taking any of this traffic at any time unless the railways object and ask for the traffic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has said, the railways are not likely to look for traffic which they cannot suitably carry and which it will be difficult for them to carry in a reasonable manner.
It is clear from Clause 70 (3) and (4) that, even if they did object, they would not get the traffic because the conditions which are mentioned in the Amendments make it unsuitable for carriage by rail. The railway authorities, under the provisions of subsections (3) and (4), could not satisfy the licensing authority that they could, with the disadvantages of the mileage, the non-existence of the railway station, and so on, carry the goods equally well, at greater speed and efficiency or at less cost. I wonder what all the argument has been about.
One or two minor points have been raised which are worthy of answer by the Minister, but if the Opposition intend to insist on taking up as much time on a matter which has no effect at all as they have so far—
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)
Is the hon. Gentleman accusing us of wasting time? May I point out to him that one more hon. Member has spoken from the benches opposite than from this side of the House?
§ Mr. Hynd
Yes, and I am the one, and I rose only to protest that the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the shortage of time are quite unreal, in view of their tactics.
The only point which may have any significance comes in Amendment No. 267, which refers to a starting point or a destination more than 40 miles distant 1851 from the rail terminals. That could give rise to considerable anomalies. There might be a point which was 39¾ miles from a terminal, and I can imagine the questions and accusations which would come from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Minister drawing lines within a quarter of a mile to conform to an Amendment which they themselves have put down.
Surely it would be better to stand by the provisions of the Bill and leave it to the traffic commissioners to decide, in the light of the circumstances prevailing, whether 40, 30, or even 50 miles was the more satisfactory distance. I would have thought that that was a much more reasonable and sensible way of dealing with the point than putting a definitive mileage in the Bill.
For those reasons, I hope that, after the Minister has dealt with the local points which have been raised, all these Amendments will be rejected.
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)
We have had a rather lengthy debate on this group of Amendments, but I do not complain about that because I know that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that they strike at the heart of the matter and, therefore, are to be regarded as of the highest importance in relation to this part of the Bill. In view of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to try to put the whole matter in perspective, and then I will come to the merits or demerits of the Amendments.
As hon. Members know, for many years we have had a carriers' licensing system which includes a form of quantity control. It is not a very effectual system, but we have quite a long experience of it. In our reform of the carriers' licensing system, we have taken three basic steps. We have abolished licensing altogether for a substantial proportion of commercial vehicles, about 900,000 of the total of 1½ million. Then we have introduced quality licensing. Finally, we have introduced a novel form of quantity control applicable to a smaller number of vehicles than are subject to "A" licensing today, something under 100,000, compared with 190,000 today, but biting in an effective way on the operations of 1852 those vehicles, which is not achieved by the present system.
For a very long period, the trend has been for traffic to transfer from rail to road, and we have deliberately set out to try, in the national interest, to provide for a transfer of traffic from road to rail, notwithstanding the fact that, even on our optimum calculations, it will continue to mean a growth of the road transport industry and that in 10 years' time our roads will carry a greater proportion of the country's goods.
We have done it by saying that quantity control shall be applicable only to journeys of over 100 miles by vehicles of over 16 tons gross weight and to the carriage of specified bulk commodities over any distance. That is estimated to affect 100,000 of the 1½ million vehicles in the business. I stress that, because there is still a misapprehension that, somehow, it is applicable to all vehicles and all journeys.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite move to amend the system in three ways. First, they wish to insert an exemption by altering the definition of the controlled journey by saying that it should not apply where there is no railway system. Second, they move to say that, where the railway terminals are more than a certain distance from the origin or destination of the journey, the system should not be applicable. Third, hon. Members on the Liberal benches propose that certain types of goods should be exempted where they are certified as being unsuitable for transportation by rail.
To make the system workable, we are anxious to establish the general rule. Clearly, that will be unpalatable to those who are utterly opposed to any kind of quantity control. It has been interesting to hear that the Conservative Party is against any form of quantity control and is in favour of total laisser-faire. To those who are against any form of quantity control, it will be unpalatable, but we must seek to make the system workable by establishing the general rule.
I know that there is power in the Bill for the making of exemptions from quantity licensing. In Committee, we produced a provisional list of items that it was proposed to exclude for good and sufficient reasons. The three items were the carriage of household furniture, the 1853 carriage of livestock, and journeys between off-shore islands. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) that the latter item means not only in and between the off-shore islands, but between the islands and the mainland. However, it does not cover journeys which continue over 100 miles on the mainland and which might be suitable for freighters.
§ Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)
The three items that the hon. Gentleman has listed were debated in Standing Committee, but does he envisage that perishable goods would be among the matters to be included in a later list?
§ Mr. Swingler
I said that this was a provisional list. However, if we are to make the system work in pursuit of the aims that we have set out to achieve, the more exemptions and exceptions written into the Statute or into regulations, the more unworkable the system will become and the more unlikely it will be to achieve those aims. We therefore approach in a highly critical fashion any proposition for exemptions.
§ Mr. MacArthur
Will not the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking about transport of perishable goods? Does he recognise that under the working of this Clause many perishable goods will perish?
§ Mr. Swingler
I do not think that the hon. Member is correct. He has seriously overlooked the safeguards written into the Bill.
§ Mr. Manuel
May I remind my hon. Friend that certain people are receiving very good service through perishable goods being carried overnight and arriving fresh in the morning at their destinations? I should not like the Minister to do anything which would weaken the resolve of those people to send their goods by freightliner trains.
§ Mr. Swingler
I hope that nothing I say will weaken the resolve of those who use freightliner trains for the conveyance of all kinds: of commodities to do so in future.
In answer to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), I point out that Clause 68(2)(b), dealing with a controlled journey, covers a transport service, not only one journey. It 1854 may be a pattern of journeys on a regular basis according to the particulars given to the licensing authority. I assure the hon. Member that the conception embodied in the Statute is that a licensing authority can consider a whole pattern of journeys, including back loads and back journeys. This would reduce any necessity for bureaucracy so long as the licensing authority was satisfied on the basis of speed, reliability and cost that the goods should go by road.
That is also my answer to questions about perishable goods from the West Country. This should genuinely be the test. If it is the conviction of hon. Members and their constituents that these goods must go by road transport on account of certain factors, on account of efficiency, seasonal fluctuations and perishability, it should also be the conviction of those hon. Members and their constituents that they would have no difficulty in convincing an independent licensing authority that on the strict test of speed, reliability and cost these permits should be granted almost automatically.
In Clause 69(2) we have met the point made by the Liberal Party about certification. That subsection provides deliberately for a certification procedure very close to the lines of the Liberal Amendment. It waives the whole of the objection procedure and the waiting days if the haulier can give the licensing authority a certificate that the Railway Board does not object. In fact, that process has been going on for a long time already. Recently, a public speech was made by the Chairman of the Railways Board in which he said that the Board will not take up a ridiculous posture of offering formal objections in cases where there are no railway lines or service on freight lines.
It would be a ridiculous and extraordinary misrepresentation of the relationship between road hauliers and the managers of British Railways to suggest that they would indulge in an absurd dialogue where no possibility of rail transport exists. Under Clause 69(2) there is automatic granting of licences where a certificate is issued and the railway authorities cannot object because they cannot provide a service.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. John Wells
A horticulturist may be growing a highly perishable crop and 1855 sending day after day to a market. Then he wishes to switch to another market. Perhaps he has been sending from Cheddar to Covent Garden and he wishes to switch to Newcastle. Would he get an automatic certificate in the course of an afternoon?
§ Mr. Swingler
If the hon. Member is asking me about the judgment that would be made by British Railways or the Freight Corporation management, it would be entirely wrong for me to prejudge what attitude they would take, but I call attention to Clause 71, which provides for the emergency granting or the granting in exceptional circumstances of authorisations, again waiving the whole of the objection procedure. If a case were made at a few hours' notice that action must be taken because of the nature of the goods, that would be done. That is why we have inserted that Clause. The licensing authority is given discretionary power to grant these authorisations.
While we want to establish a general rule and, therefore, not to write exemptions into the Statute, we want flexible administration. There will be some exemptions, but there will be flexibility and the possibility of road hauliers agreeing with British Rail and the Freight Corporation that certain journeys must be done by road because of questions of speed, reliability and cost. That is why I cannot accept the Amendment, but I give the assurance on Amendment No. 272 that in Clause 69(2) the point is met. With the reasonable relationship between the road haulage industry and the Railways Board and the Freightliner management, the purpose which they wish to achieve, if this is the most efficient way of doing the job, will be achieved.
§ Mr. Peter Walker
I am sorry to start my speech in the rather exceptional circumstances of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) not being in his place. I regret that, because I wanted to congratulate him. He ended his speech by saying that this is a good Transport Bill. If my constituency were like his, the only constituency in the country exempt both from P.T.A.s and quantity licensing, I might have felt the same. His constituents must be considered some of the most fortunate in the United Kingdom.
1856 The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) intervened following the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson) because he is very enthusiastic, as I think most of us are, in trying to ensure that the reputation of railwaymen should be in no way damaged. As he was a railwayman for many years, we appreciate that, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did not wish to put a slur on the reputation of railwaymen. He said that someone had made a decision not to send goods by rail because when he did so the goods suffered pilferage.
Likewise, it was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman that people sending goods by lorries doubtless suffer the same thing, and decide to send them by rail. The hon. Member was pointing out that it was a matter of choice. Certain types of goods might well suffer more pilferage by road than by rail, and vice versa. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that the railwaymen have a high reputation for integrity and good service to the public.
§ Mr. Manuel
I am very pleased that the hon. Member has raised this matter. If I mistakenly took it that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was meaning that railwaymen had pilfered goods sent by rail, I unreservedly withdraw any allegations.
§ Mr. James Davidson
I did not mention railway workers. I did not mention any particular group of people. I merely said that goods of this nature had been pilfered when sent by rail. I said, "when sent by rail", not, "by railway workers". The hon. Gentleman can look it up in HANSARD tomorrow.
§ Mr. Peter Walker
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, has made it perfectly clear that he meant no imputation against railwaymen. Both sides of the House will agree with that.
We were disappointed with the Minister's remarks. The difference between us was summed up when the hon. Gentleman said that the Government's attitude was that they want the minimum of exceptions to quantity licensing. We on this side want to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. We cannot see why we should have a system under which, for example, people in a part of Scotland 1857 where there are no railways go through the process constantly when they suddenly want to send goods for more than 100 miles. They will have to make this sort of application, well knowing that they will get approval, and this is completely unnecessary. The reason why the Western Isles and the islands are exempted is that they do not possess railways, and the Government obviously consider that it would be a complete waste of time to put them through the process.
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—
§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman constantly intervenes during these debates. He makes uninteresting interventions that are off the point, and 1 shall not give way.
Amendment No. 265 would result in considerable areas of Scotland and other localities being saved the appalling bureaucracy that quantity licensing involves. The people in the areas would know that they can invest in lorries and other vehicles and how they can organise their transport.
§ I normally respect the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) on this topic, but he failed to recognise that it is not just the railways that could object. The National Freight Corporation, which could have a branch using only lorries in one of those areas, could decide many hundreds of miles away to use a railway for a proportion of a journey, and could object.
§ Mr. John Hynd
I was replying to the points made in the debate by hon. Members opposite in reference to the railways.
§ Mr. Walker
The Amendments concern the fact that if there is no railway in an area the N.F.O. may well have a depot there and can object, and the whole process of licensing comes into the matter, in our view unnecessarily. Therefore, I am completely dissatisfied with the Minister's reply and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
§ Question put: That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 260.1861
|Division No. 193.]||AYES||[4.54 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Clegg, Walter||Grant, Anthony|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Cooke, Robert||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Astor, John||Cooper-Key, Sir Neil)||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'tl & M'd'n)||Corfield, F. V.||Grieve, Percy|
|Awdry, Daniel||Costa in, A. P.||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Crouch, David||Grimond, Rt. Hn. j.|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Crowder, F. P.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bairtiel, Lord||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Hall-Davis, A. C. F.|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Currie, G. B. H.||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Batsford, Brian||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Davitfson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Belt, Ronald||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Harvie Anderson, Miss|
|Bessell, Peter||Doughty, Charles||Hastings, Stephen|
|Biffen, John||Drayson, G. B.||Hawkins, Paul|
|Biggs-Davison, John||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hay, John|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Eden, Sir John||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel|
|Blaker, Peter||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Boardman, Turn (Leicester, S.W.)||Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Heseltine, Michael|
|Body, Richard||Emery, Peter||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Errington, Sir Eric||Hiley, Joseph|
|Boyd-Carpentor, Rt. Hn. John||Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)||Hill, J. E. B.|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Eyre, Reginald||Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin|
|Braine, Bernard||Farr, John||Holland, Philip|
|Brewis, John||Fisher, Nigel||Hordern, Peter|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Hornby, Richard|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter||Fortescue, Tim||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Foster, Sir John||Hunt, John|
|Bruce-Cardyne, J.||Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Bryan, Paul||Galbraith, Hn. T. G||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M)||Gibson-Watt, David||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Burden, F. A.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Campbell, Gordon||Glyn, Sir Richard||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Goodhart, Philip||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Goodhew, Victor||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Clark, Henry||Cower, Raymond||Kimball, Marcus|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Kirk, Peter||Nott, John||Stainon, Keith|
|Kitson, Timothy||Onslow, Cranley||Stodart, Anthony|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Tapsell, Peter|
|Lancaster, Col. C. C.||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Lane, David||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Pardoe, John||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Teeling, Sir William|
|Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'd field)||Peel, John||Temple, John M.|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Peyton, John||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Lubbock, Eric||Pink, R. Bonner||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Pounder, Rafton||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|MacArthur, Ian||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Prior, J. M. L.||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain||Pym, Francis||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|McMaster, Stanley||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Wall, Patrick|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Walters, Dennis|
|Maddan, Martin||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Webster, David|
|Maginnis, John E.||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Marten, Neil||Ridsdale, Julian||Williams, Donald (Dudley)|
|Maude, Angus||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Mawby, Ray||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Royle, Anthony||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Russell, Sir Roland||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Miscampbell, Norman||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Scott, Nicholas||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Monro, Hector||Scott-Hopkins, James||Worsley, Marcus|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Sharpies, Richard||Wylie, N. R.|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Silvester, Frederick|
|Murton, Oscar||Sinclair, Sir George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Neave, Airey||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)||Mr. Jasper More and|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Smith, John (London & W'minster)||Mr. Bernard Weatheriil.|
|Abse, Leo||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Albu, Austen||Crawshaw, Richard||Garrett, W. E.|
|Alldritt, Walter||Cronin, John||Gourlay, Harry|
|Allen, Scholefield||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Anderson, Donald||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Gregory, Arnold|
|Archer, Peter||Dalyell, Tam||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Hamling, William|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hannan, William|
|Barnes, Michael||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Harper, Joseph|
|Barnett, Joel||Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Bence, Cyril||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Haseldine, Norman|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Delargy, Hugh||Hattersley, Roy|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Dell, Edmund||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Binns, John||Dempsey, James||Henig, Stanley|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dewar, Donald||Hooley, Frank|
|Blackburn, F.||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dickens, James||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Doig, Peter||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)|
|Booth, Albert||Driberg, Tom||Howie, W.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Dunn, James A.||Hoy, James|
|Boyden, James||Durnnett, Jack||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Bradley, Tom||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)|
|Brooks, Edwin||Eadie, Alex||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Edelman, Maurice||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hunter, Adam|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Hynd, John|
|Buchan, Norman||Ellis, John||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)||English, Michael||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Ennals, David||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Ensor, David||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Cant, R. B.||Faulds, Andrew||Jeger, George (Goole)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)||Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Foley, Maurice||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Chapman, Donald||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Coe, Denis||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Coleman, Donald||Forrester, John||Jones, Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Fowler, Gerry||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Freeson, Reginald||Judd, Frank|
|Kelley, Richard||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Moyle, Roland||Silver-man, Julius (Aston)|
|Lawson, George||Neal, Harold||Slater, Joseph|
|Ledger, Ron||Newens, Stan||Small, William|
|Lee, John (Reading)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Snow, Julian|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Norwood, Christopher||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Ogden, Eric||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||O'Malley, Brian||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Lipton, Marcus||Oram, Albert E.||Swain, Thomas|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Orme, Stanley||Swingler, Stephen|
|Lyon, Alexander w. (York)||Oswald, Thomas||Symonds, J. B.|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Taverne, Dick|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Palmer, Arthur||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|McBride, Neil||Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles||Thomson, Rt. Hn. George|
|McCann, John||Park, Trevor||Thornton, Ernest|
|MacColl, James||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Tinn, James|
|MacDermot, Niall||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Tomney, Frank|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Pavitt, Laurence||Urwin, T. W.|
|McGuire, Michael||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Varley, Eric G.|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Pentland, Norman||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Mackle, John||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Price, Thomas (Westhoushton)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Probert, Arthur||Wellbeloved, James|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Randall, Harry||Whitaker, Ben|
|MacPherson, Malcolm||Rankin, John||Whitlock, William|
|Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)||Rees, Merlyn||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Reynolds, G. W,||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Mallalieu, E, L. (Brigg)||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Richard, Ivor||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Manuel, Archie||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Willis, Rt. Hn. George|
|Marks, Kenneth||Robrnson, Rt.Hn,Kenneth(St.P'c'as)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Winnick, David|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Roebuck, Roy||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Rose, Paul||Woof, Robert|
|Mikardo, Ian||Ryan, John||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Millan, Bruce||Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)||Yates, Victor|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Sheldon, Robert|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Mr.Alan Fitch and|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Mr. Joan L. Evans.|
§ Amendment made: No. 268, in page 96,line 2, leave out ' ten ' and insert ' eleven '.—[Mr. Swingler.]
- Clause 69 2,615 words cc1869-83
- Clause 70 6,077 words, 1 division cc1884-5
- Clause 75 184 words c1885
- Clause 76 22 words c1885
- Clause 79 26 words c1885
- Clause 83 64 words c1885
- Clause 86 85 words c1886
- Clause 87 18 words c1886
- Clause 88 58 words c1886
- Clause 89 281 words cc1887-900
- Clause 90 5,018 words cc1900-38
- Clause 91 14,726 words, 2 divisions cc1938-41
- Clause 92 1,871 words, 1 division cc1941-3
- Clause 93 459 words c1943
- Clause 94 169 words cc1943-4
- Clause 97 69 words c1944
- Clause 98 49 words cc1944-89
- Clause 100 17,914 words, 3 divisions cc1989-90
- Clause 103 91 words c1990
- Clause 104 58 words c1991
- Clause 105 48 words cc1991-3
- Clause 118 933 words cc1993-2009
- Clause 119 6,412 words, 1 division cc2009-19
- Clause 123 3,709 words, 1 division cc2019-23
- Clause 126 2,193 words, 1 division cc2023-8
- Clause 128 1,424 words cc2028-34
- Clause 129 2,253 words cc2035-8
- Clause 129 1,329 words c2038
- Clause 136 96 words c2039
- Clause 137 58 words c2039
- Clause 141 29 words c2039
- Clause 145 141 words