TRANSPORT BILL

HC Deb 30 May 1968 vol 765 cc2059-102

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

10.0 a.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh)

I have it in command from Her Majesty to tell the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Transport Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Laughter.]—the Third time.

I thought it would be rather entertaining if we could start from the beginning again. I rather liked the phrase used about the Bill by The Times on Tuesday. The Times referred to the Bill as "Not a bad Monster".

We on this side of the House make no apologies for the size of the Bill. The size of the Bill merely reflects the size of the problem. In asking Parliament to face up to a problem of this size we were asking Parliament to tackle a heritage of neglect and incompetence for which hon. Members opposite must bear the blame.

When I came to the Ministry of Transport, it was interesting to see the way in which the discussion was going. One had read in the newspapers of the great passions which the Bill had evoked among hon. Members opposite and their desire to ensure that certain controversies within it should be fully debated, yet all the evidence of the Committee stage and the Report stage is that the whole thing became a somewhat "phoney" exercise.

The Bill is primarily concerned, not about nationalisation, nor is it about some deep plot by Whitehall to run all our buses or to do down the road haulage industry. The Bill in fact has a number of objectives. One of its objectives is to realise the transport policy which this Government were elected to carry out, namely to provide Britain with an integrated transport system. But if integration is to be more than a political slogan we must do more than simply put together the assets and activities which previous Governments have torn asunder.

Throughout this Bill I distinguish two themes which we have sought to promote at every turn—managerial efficiency and the provision of right inventives for each industry with which we have had to deal. There is no point in going through every part of the Bill in detail. Indeed, it would be unfair to do so because I have already had to make my apologies to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who is to open for the Opposition, for the fact that I shall have to leave rapidly after my speech because there is another meeting in the precincts which I have to attend.

There is no point in going into detail, but I should like to demonstrate how these themes are picked up again and again in all the major provisions of the Bill. They have cropped up time and again in these long wearisome debates. The first part of the Bill deals with the National Freight Corporation. Here we do two things. We put an end to the quite pointless competition between British Rail and British Road Services for some of the same traffic. But we also provide a framework in which management will be subjected to the discipline of commercial profitability and this will also be the yardstick of its success.

I am convinced that the freight transport consumer—industry—stands to benefit enormously from integration in this field. Container traffics, for example, cry out for integration. It is rather strange that the Opposition should have resisted so fiercely the establishment of an organisation capable of maximising the economic benefits of modern transport technology. What amazes me is that even at this late stage they are incapable of realising the complete illogicality in the modern world of having two quite separate sectors of the same industry.

The proposals for passenger transport authorities are a similar measure of integration. The Bill creates the framework in which local authorities individually and together can set out to solve the traffic and transport problems of the 1970s. Of course there are differences of view about the P.T.A.s and how they should operate, but I am convinced that local authorities will welcome them because they will see that here is an instrument which they can use effectively. The authority will set the general lines of policy and the Executive will translate that policy into action, and the Executive will be working under a clear financial directive.

Of course hon. Members opposite have invented a double bogey with which to try to scare—I must confess with some success—various sections of the community. They have gone busily around the country saying that there will be swingeing increases in the rates because the P.T.A.s will be responsible for local suburban rail services, but they have ignored the fact that the Government are to give generous help with the cost of these services. They also ignore the fact that the P.T.A.s, through their wide new powers to plan and develop passenger transport with the aid of Government grants, will be in a far better position to run viable transport systems than the existing authorities.

The basic point here is that whether a suburban railway line should be kept open when it is unprofitable is properly a local decision, but those who take such a decision should take it in the light of the financial responsibility which goes with it. With all the criticisms we heard about lack of financial discipline in the public sector I should have thought that this would be particularly popular with hon. Members opposite.

Of course the biggest problem which has cropped up and the major sector of the Bill has been on the question of the railways. It has been suggested that this is basically a Bill for feather-bedding the railway system largely because of the plan for quantity licensing of road haulage. If ever there has been a piece of legislation or a part of a Bill which has been exaggerated as to its effects this has been deliberately whipped up by hon. Member opposite to such an extent that one feels that they do not even understand it themselves. A large section of the country does not understand it because, indeed, the controversy about quantity licensing—[Interruption.] It is not a question of knowing the Bill. It is a fact that a large amount of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Front Benches must restrain themselves a little.

Mr. Marsh

Hon. Members opposite tend to get whipped up in this way because they have got into the habit of doing it. They have been in this hysterical way ever since this issue came before the Committee. As a result there is undoubtedly a great deal of fear in the industry about the proposals for quantity licensing which is totally unjustified by the facts about the provisions. If one takes together the natural market attraction of freightliners and the Bill's provisions as to quantity licensing, the combined effect will be to shift not more than 10 per cent. of the existing freight off road on to rail over the next eight or nine years. To suggest that that is a serious threat to the road haulage industry is nonsensical.

On the commercial criteria there can and will be no question of moving goods from road to rail if that means that they will be carried less efficiently. The whole question of quantity licensing has been deliberately inflated out of all recognition. It is very interesting indeed to see that when this issue came before the Committee and then before the House on Report, although hon. Members opposite expressed themselves as deeply moved by the wickedness of this proposal, the vast bulk of the Amendments were pretty frivolous ones. [Interruption.] I can only say to hon. Members opposite that when one reads the debates, as we have done, and when one has had the misfortune of sitting through some of them, one knows that we have had the same Amendments on the same issues.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate Amendments on Third Reading.

Mr. Marsh

That is perfectly fair and I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Quantity licensing will apply only to the heaviest lorries. At one stroke nearly a million light vans will be rid of the need for carriers' licences altogether and quality licensing will mean tighter controls on safety for over half a million heavier vehicles.

It is said that the Bill feather-beds the railways by relieving them of an intolerable debt burden. For the first time in their history the railways will have an effective, firm, but severe financial discipline imposed upon them. They have been in severe financial trouble for a very long time under Governments of both parties. Much of the cause of this has been the social burden they have had to carry. Despite massive investment—more than £100 million a year since the mid-1950s, the railways deficit is in my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends completely out of hand. It is absurd to expect an industry to respond in terms of good management and morale with a deficit that no one believes can ever be wiped off in the normal way. The Opposition met this problem in 1962 and tinkered around with it. They suspended over half the debt which we are abolishing. That was a failure to face the facts. That debt could never be reasonably expected to bear interest and should have been eliminated long ago.

It is said that cancelling the debt is subsidising the railways under another name. That is not so. The capital value is determined by estimating the future profitability which we should get from the industry, given good management, and we have good managers there.

That is what the Government are trying to do for the railways. There are social services in our economic structure and there are economic services, and there is no reason why a publicly-owned industry as such should carry social costs. If a publicly-owned industry is desired to carry a social obligation, the Government should meet the cost, as we are doing under the Bill. For the rest, the job of the railways is to function on commercial criteria, and they must be run as a national business, and as an efficient business. No one should underestimate the difficulty of the task which faces the railways at present, and I do not think that anybody on this side of the House does so.

There will inevitably be further declines in their traditional freight traffic. They need to pursue a vigorous, flexible and very strong marketing policy. That is why the Government welcome the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes published today, and accept its recommendations.

In particular, we agree that if the Railways Board is to fulfil its new financial remit market pricing must be the backbone of its pricing policy. This is already the practice over large parts of the freight services of British Rail, and the Government have therefore accepted the recommendation that there should be no general increase for freight charges but that the Railways Board should continue to negotiate individual contracts against the background of its new tough commercial remit, so as to increase its net revenue as much as it can in its competitive environment. The Government will be consulted by the Board about any price increases in 1969 which would be likely to have a general and significant effect on industrial costs.

Market pricing will be a new departure in the passenger field where the basic fares are still fixed on a standard mileage scale. It is right that the railways should get away from this and relate their charges to what their services can legitimately earn. There is no reason why the services should not be priced on the basis of what the market will bear. British Railways will now be working on this, and individual passenger fares, both first- and second-class, will doubtless be increased by varying amounts in the coming months.

The Report approves the proposals for percentage increases in the parcels and sundries scales. These will be adjusted by the Railways Board as quickly as possible.

In view of timetable difficulties relating to the Transport Tribunal's procedures, I have already authorised the Railways Board to submit a formal application to the Tribunal for percentage fare increases in the London area to keep them in line with London Transport, as recommended in the Report.

The reference to the Prices and Incomes Board last October necessarily precluded increases in charges which would have brought British Railways in at least an additional £1 million a month. But the reference has probably been of public advantage in that it should now lead to British Railways' charging policies being put on a sounder basis for the future. From the beginning of next year, as a result of the Bill, British Railways will be on their own.

Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)

Does the Report contain any sort of general percentage overall increase which it is expected will have to be obtained, say, on the passenger side?

Mr. Marsh

The intention is that the Board should examine its passenger charges, that it should do a marketing costing and then proceed to submit separately proposals for specific increases based on what the market will bear, with the assumption that there will be a limit on the second-class fares and none on the first-class fares.

In due course we shall have to fix a new target for the Railways Board along the lines set out in the White Paper, Nationalised Industries: A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives. It will not be sufficient for the Railways Board merely to break even. It will be required to build up a general reserve, a duty which was temporarily suspended under the 1962 Act. This is essential if the Board is to put itself in a viable position, able to face with confidence the difficulties and uncertainties of the next few years. If in any year it fails to break even, there will in future be no deficit grant from the Government. I can assure hon. Members opposite that all the talk about feather-bedding sounds pretty hollow to the management of British Railways at present. It is only too conscious that it faces a very difficult and tough task. It consists of men devoted to a publicly-owned industry, and it is a source of some sadness that throughout our debates there has been constant sniping and sneering attacks on every one of the publicly-owned industries. These people have a real and tough job to do and are entitled to the support of the whole House in doing it.

But it has been pretty clear that the debates have not really been concerned with setting proper incentives for nationalised industries or enabling management in them to do a proper managerial job. One of the most controversial Clauses in the Bill was Clause 45, which gives the workshops of the nationalised industries freedom to enter the general market. Then we heard the apostles of competition insisting that the publicly-owned industries should not be a charge on the taxpayer. "We believe in competition," they say, but let a nationalised industry enter into competition with the private sector, let it maximise the use of publicly-owned assets within that industry and the screaming we hear from hon. Members opposite, and have heard all the way through the consideration of the Bill, is very loud. Why they have such lack of confidence in the ability of the private sector to compete, I do not know. They say that the nationalised industries must not be subsidised. Of course, they must not. I accept that. I do not think that they should be, but if they are not to be subsidised they must be able to manage their businesses with the same freedom as any other competitive commercial body. One cannot do it by placing shackles on the nationalised industries' commercial freedom of action which would never be placed on any private industry.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)

Does the Minister accept that one cannot do it unless one takes account of the market value of the capital employed in the nationalised industries as a whole?

Mr. Marsh

Over and over again we hear the old story. We had it at great length and when the arguments were put on Report they were no more convincing than they were in Committee.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must not drift. We can discuss only what is in the Bill. That Amendment was out, I think.

Mr. Marsh

I know, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members opposite keep doing it.

This has been the Opposition's policy for public enterprise throughout, and then they have the gall to complain if a publicly-owned industry fails to make a profit.

We make no secret, and do not apologise for the fact, that this is a Bill to reorganise transport. It is a big, comprehensive Bill, but one cannot reorganise transport in this country except on a comprehensive scale, which involves a very large Bill. The problem we faced over a long period was the failure to recognise the one basic point that one cannot separate the separate sectors of transport and have a transport policy.

Inevitably, there has been a great deal of heat in the debate. Many of the arguments turned not on the individual issues in the Bill but alleged abuse by the Government of Parliamentary procedure. The only people who have shown anything less than respect for the rights of the House are hon. Members opposite. They complained that proposals for quantity licensing were not properly discussed in Committee. Of 11 Clauses dealing with quantity licensing, only the first, Clause 67, was debated in Committee. That was because the Opposition insisted on having eight separate debates on different kinds of traffic which they wanted to exempt from quantity licensing. They insisted on this despite the clear and repeated statements that the Government would consider the case for exemptions under the regulations.

We put forward the proposition that the eight Amendments should be taken together, but we had to have eight separate debates on that one Clause when one would have sufficed. We had to sit through those debates, hearing my hon. Friend the Minister of State referring back to the remarks he had made on the first Amendment in discussion of every succeeding Amendment of the eight. It was the same debate over and over again. That sort of thing makes a mockery of the procedures of the House.

Then we had the Amendments moved by the Government on Report. There has been a lot of comment in the Press and on the Floor of the House about this. I would be interested to know what exactly it is expected that a Minister in a Standing Committee should do if it is not to listen to debates and put down Amendments in the light of what emerges. As far as I can see, if I and my right hon. Friend before me had ignored every word said in Committee— and there was a certain temptation to ignore some—everything would have been all right, but because we listened to what was said and tried to meet the points made—because there is no absolute wisdom on either side about this— and then put down Amendments, we are criticised.

What about all this trouble over the Amendments which the Government put down? We introduced 192 Amendments and four new Clauses. Of these, 53 were substantive and the rest were purely consequential on the 53. Of the 53, no less than 44 were in direct response to points made in Committee. Only nine new points were originated by the Government on Report.

The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If the Committee procedure means anything and we do not waste our time here, it is the job of the Government to listen and, in response, to put down Amendments to a large Bill on Report. If that is not what is wanted, it places Ministers on future occasions in a genuine dilemma at the beginning of a Bill, because if the extent to which a Minister responds to a Committee is in direct ratio to the amount of hostility which seems to be generated in both Houses and in the Press, the option seems clear. Yet if the Committee stage produces results on Report, the Opposition should surely not complain.

But the truth is that the Opposition did not want to use the Committee to consider the Bill in detail. They used it as an instrument for a purely political campaign.

Mr. Peter Walker

A minute ago the right hon. Gentleman argued that he had to move 192 Amendments, most of them due to criticisms made in Committee. Now he argues that no criticisms were made in Committee.

Mr. Marsh

It is not a question of criticism made in Committee. Amendments were put to meet specific points made from both sides of the Committee. That is surely the purpose of having a Committee stage. If it is not assumed that a large Bill will be amended on a large scale, what on earth is the purpose of having a Committee stage? I think that the intention behind the Opposition's attitude has been to present their friends in another place with the maximum amount of provocation, and we should get that clear.

This is a Government Bill. It reflects the mandate upon which we were elected. We intend to have the Bill because we are entitled to it as the elected party.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

Go to the country.

Mr. Marsh

This part of the Government does not accept the process of referenda. We do not intend to be diverted from our objectives by spurious arguments about abuse of procedure from those who have made every effort to prevent sensible discussion of the details. We are dealing here with a subject which affects everyone in the country. Everyone is involved in transport and needs the best we can give. Transport is one of the problems which have affected the economy significantly because decisions have to be wide-ranging and imaginative—and that is what they are in this Bill. They are bound to involve controversy and it is the failure of successive Governments to face this sort of measure of economic planning which bears a large proportion of the blame for the difficulties we have today.

The Government accept that this is a controversial Bill. It is right that it should have been properly debated. It is a Bill which is crucial to the economy and its contribution will be very much commended.

Mr. Speaker

I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the Chair will put the Question on the Third Reading at at 11.47 a.m. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that speeches will be reasonably brief.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)

Perhaps one of the most significant of the right hon. Gentleman's phrases was that this part of the Government does not believe in referenda. There is no part of the Government which would fail more in a referendum than his.

I first want to express our thanks to a number of the Ministers, particularly the Minister of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He has, in many debates in Committee and on Report, borne a great deal of the burden and with the change of Ministers during the Committee stage an extra burden was put upon him. We disagreed with most of his replies, but we thank him for the consideration he gave and the work he has done.

I also want to thank my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Member for Tavi-stock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who have done a considerable volume of work and have made detailed criticisms. I think, too, that both sides will pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) for his conscientious and lone efforts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

What about the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster)?

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare needs no specific thanks because he himself will be winding up this debate for the Opposition in the same skilful way in which he wound up many debates throughout the proceedings of the Bill. We certainly pay tribute to him for what he has done.

The Bill will now go to another place. This major piece of legislation goes to its Third Reading in this House with one-third of the Clauses not debated either in Committee or on Report. Possibly for the first time with a major Bill it goes to Third Reading without any back-bench Members on either Opposition parties having had an opportunity to say one word in support of any new Clause which they wanted to insert. No time was given in Committee and on Report for new Clauses, apart from the Government new Clauses. This was not our fault. The Government tabled additional new Clauses, thus preventing discussion on any Opposition new Clauses.

Mr. Ron Lewis

Had the Opposition been a little more courteous in Committee to the Government, new Clauses such as that submitted by me would have been reached.

Mr. Walker

They would not. Indeed, many Government Clauses were guillotined in the Committee. I deplore the manner in which this legislation has been steam-rollered through the House. The rather pathetic defence by the Minister of the way the Government have acted will not bear examination.

The Bill was badly drafted in the first place. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 192 Amendments which the Government moved on Report. He rightly said that many were made to meet points raised in Committee. Therefore, nearly 200 Amendments were needed on the two-thirds of the Bill which were discussed in Committee.

Quite obviously, if we had had the time to make the other third of the Bill something like 300 Government Amendments would have been necessary. This is in addition to more than 200 Amendments moved in Committee. In total, 400 Government Amendments, something like 32 for every Clause, have been necessary because this Bill was so badly drafted in the first place and the policy behind it was so wrong. Even in the Government's view something like three Amendments per Clause were needed to get this Bill into some proper shape. This was the result of putting 10 Bills under one title.

I very much deplore this, because certain sections of the Bill, the inland waterways section for instance, is of importance to many people with particular interests and pastimes. In total, five hours of debate have been given to what should have been quite a major piece of legislation in itself. The licensing system, which the Minister mentioned, and the discussions which took place upon it, are another example of the way in which the Government dealt with this. The Minister said how appalling it was that the Opposition should have the temerity to want to debate the effects of quantity licensing on the various major industries in the country. "Fancy wasting time doing that", he said. As every hon. Member knows, there should have been a major licensing Bill. Both sides of the House are agreed that the quality licensing is very important, and I very much favour it. We all know that many technical improvements were made in that system and many Amendments have been accepted by the Government. The Government appreciate this.

Here was a major licensing reform, crammed in with all the other legislation in this enormous Bill. The result is that we have this massive piece of legislation for which we were allowed one hour for Second Reading, two hours for Third Reading, and the whole of the Committee and Report stages cramped into a limited timetable—one of the worst examples of steam-rollering legislation through Parliament in the history of this House. I very much deplore it.

The overall theme of the Bill has been interesting. There are sections of the Bill which are non-controversial, such as the inland waterways, quality licensing and many of the miscellaneous provisions. Parts have been improved and sensible debate has taken place. The major theme, which is wrong, because the previous Minister was devoted to it, was the extension of public ownership. The theme contained in the proposals for the National Freight Corporation is one which, combined with the borrowing powers and the activities of the Corporation, will almost certainly result in considerable wholesale acquisition of private enterprise haulage firms, with money obtained through the borrowing powers in the Bill.

The theme of the P.T.As was to bring into public ownership, buses and coaches throughout the country, and it will doubtless succeed. The theme of Clause 45 was to extend on a wholesale range the activities of the nationalised industries. The theme of the quantity licensing provisions was further to handicap the free enterprise sector. It is this appalling concentration on public enterprise to the detriment of free enterprise that has made the Bill such a bad one. It deserves to be opposed and attacked.

As for British Railways, one of the worst features in the Bill is the taking away of the freightliner train. The Minister attacked this side of the Committee for trying to oppose British Railways and the nationalised industries. It was this side of the Committee which tried to retain for British Railways the potentially fastest-expanding activity they possess. It ill becomes the Government that runs British Railways on the basis that the Deputy Chairman is paid more than the chairman, that takes away the most potentially expanding part of the railway system and gives it to a new authority, to talk about what they want to do to improve British Railways. As to the railway deficit, we must not forget that it was this Government, having been in power for 12 months, which said in their National Plan that by 1970 the railway deficit would be abolished, without the measures contained in this Bill.

They have failed, the deficit has increased and now the morale of British Railways will be undermined at the loss of the freightliner train. The P.T.A.s are supposed to be to organise local transport, yet there is hardly a local authority, Labour or Tory that has not opposed the P.T.A. concept. This has been approached not from the point of view of giving additional powers of planning and organisation to local authorities, it has been tackled from the point of view of creating an organisation which can extend public ownership, take over buses and go into various other activities. Once again the problem is one of co-ordination and planning, but the theme of the Government was extending public ownership by various means of back-door nationalisation.

As to quantity licensing, apart from the Minister, it does not have a defender in the country. Every editorial in every newspaper, Left-wing or Right-wing has deplored the system. Every section of industry has deplored it. Agriculture and industry combined to say what an absurd bureaucratic conception it is. [Interruption.] The only mutter that we can get is from the loyal hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), and even he is not in his usual enthusiastic voice for this particular contest.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

I had in the House yesterday a big industrialist, and I introduced him to the Minister of State. Quite voluntarily this man told my hon. Friend that he and other industrialists supported the quantity provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Walker

All I can say is that if I had any shares in his company I would sell them quickly. How can an industrialist consider it to be an advantage to have to request the Government for the use of his lorry for a distance of more than 100 miles? Everyone is opposed to it, it is bureaucratic, it is absurd and it has no friends. It is a form of restriction which will handicap British industry, and add to its costs.

Therefore, when examining the Bill, we see that one of the great themes is added cost. The Minister gave a preliminary outline of the findings of the Prices and Incomes Board. May I say how I deplore the failure of the Government to publish this before this week's debate. Here was a report which would have been of great importance to us in discussing many sections of the Bill. Strangely, by coincidence, a few hours after these proceedings are ended, this report will be published. I gather the theme of it will be increased fares and probably increased freight charges. We will obviously have to study the proposals when they are made available.

The P.T.A. proposal will certainly mean increased fares and rates. Industry is in no doubt that the other sections of the Bill will add to its costs. The multiple tailors have calculated that it will add something like 3d. in the £ to prices, and their figures have in no way been refuted. One of the best things that could be done is that the former Minister of Transport who is now responsible for prices, a responsibility that resulted last month in the biggest rise in prices for many years, should come to the House and urge the rejection of the Third Reading of the Bill. In that way alone, she could make some contribution toward reducing prices.

This Bill has been steamrollered through Parliament. The effects of it will be to add to the cost of living, to handicap the efficiency of the transport system, to increase bureaucracy and nationalisation. It has all the basic ingredients of a thoroughly bad piece of Socialist legislation. I very much regret that any Government faced with the economic problems that face this Government should decide in this Session of all Sessions to have as their major piece of legislation, a Bill which has so many adverse effects on the economy as a whole. We will probably have further debates on this because we know that Amendments will be moved in another place. The Government have already listed a number of matters concerning which they will try to move Amendments. We will probably welcome most of those Amendments. Possibly other Amendments may accompany them.

When this Bill reaches the Statute Book it will be a bad Bill if it is in anything like its present form. It will have provisions handicapping to the progress of the British economy. At the earliest opportunity we will see that those sections of the Bill which do so much damage to the economy and to the efficiency of industry, to the fares and rates of the people of this country, are tackled, amended and repealed. We hope that the harm the Bill will do, if it is ever put into operation, will at least be short lived.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

We are rushed for time, so we shall all have to speak quickly and possibly not dwell as long as we should wish on what we consider to be our strong points.

I remember the dismal experience that I had as a member of the Committee that steamrollered the 1962 Act through the House. The intention of the 1962 Act was to drive more and more traffic on to our already congested roads, and this was admitted at the time. The party opposite had no great campaign then in Committee or in the House or even in the country. They wanted to accom-pish what they did in the 1962 Act by stealth. There was no campaign team and no rallies up and down the country. Everyone realises now that the 1962 Transport Act was a bad Act. Transport problems have got steadily worse because of the congestion which has been caused on our roads, and an under-used railway system has caused steadily increasing railway deficits. Railwaymen have become more and more disheartened. Any Government worth its salt had to deal with this worsening position. Hence the reason for the present legislation being brought forward.

I congratulate the Government. I willingly worked through our long Committee stage, because this Bill for the first time tackles the basic transport problems of this country, giving us a railway network which will serve the country and try to bring sanity into a road system by transferring huge loads, where possible, off the roads and on to our railways.

When this Bill was brought forward, with its many enlightened provisions, the party opposite started a great campaign against it. Some of my hon. Friends on this side have been closer to that campaign than I. At any rate, we know that money has been spent like water to try to turn public opinion against the Bill. But it has failed, despite the avalanche of posters about "Kill the Transport Bill" and rallies being held up and down the country. Despite the high-powered campaign—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and the briefing team, and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) boasting that he was spending £10,000 of his own money to pay the briefing team, the campaign has petered out. There is hardly a flicker of life left. That is despite the 4s. levy per vehicle put on their members by the Road Haulage Association. It must have amounted to hundreds of thousands of £s. I should like to know what will be done with it, because the people concerned have had a bad bargain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give them the money back."] We have to remember that the pledges made by the party opposite to these people have not been honoured. The campaign is as dead as the dodo It is a dead duck.

I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Worcester, to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). From the start, the briefing team assisting the Conservative Party was behind the Liberal Party all the way in the Amendments with which they were trying to deal in Committee. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bodmin, with the skill he had at his elbow and the ammunition that was being passed to him on every Amendment, should have been so slavish in his idolatry of the Tory Members on the Committee. This was my whole complaint. If the Liberal Party stood for anything—and I want to deal with the Scottish provisions for a moment or two—it was the devolution of more power to the local authorities, and more power to the Scottish Office. Therefore, I could not understand why they voted against Second Reading. The creation of the new Scottish Transport Group, bringing more control to Scotland and bringing the main bus services directly under the control of the Scottish Office is an important step. I know of no area in Scotland where this is more important than in the Highlands. Most of the transport services in the crofter countries are not viable and are heavily subsidised.

The hon. Member for Worcester talked about nationalisation and bringing transport into common ownership. This is necessary in these areas in Scotland. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about fringe activities in the crofter counties in Scotland, what are they criticising? How would the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) take the mails into Ardnamurchan in North Argyll? The mails are taken in by the passenger coach service. I recognise the great importance of this Bill to Scotland. It will serve the needs of the people.

No publicity has been given to the many provisions in the Bill which will be of immense benefit to everyone. The hon. Member for Worcester did not speak about concessions for old people. Did we ever read about it in the Press? Did it ever have any publicity on radio or television? No. But this Bill brings in concessionary fares for old people. Local authorities up and down the country will be able to bring in this concession. The party opposite have steadily opposed this concession being given.

There are many other provisions: 25 per cent. subsidy for the provision of new buses, and quality licensing to make our roads safer; subsidies to keep open socially necessary railway lines; the 50 per cent. grant to local authorities to enable buses and ferries in Scotland to be operated by the local authority if thought necessary.

We have provided the necessary machinery and impetus to provide a great step forward in transport in this counutry. We pledge ourselves to see it to finality and ensure that the party opposite will not ruin it.

10.49 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

I must start by paying tribute to the Minister of State who has carried an intolerable burden throughout the whole Bill with such good humour. He has always been helpful. I pay tribute, too, to his colleagues on the Front Bench who have always helped and assisted me throughout the many stages of the Bill.

I also add my thanks to the members of the Government party, who, in Standing Committee and on Report stage, have shown me every courtesy. I do not like to single out any one Member, but, if one, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).

I now part company with the Government benches and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who has led his party in a strong, firm and realistic opposition. Although there may be ideological differences between the three parties, no one can say that the hon. Gentleman has done other than a first-class job.

We are now reaching the end, in this House, of the lengthy stages of this massive Bill. As I leave the House of Commons for good at the end of this Session, perhaps I may claim to have expertise in one matter at least, and that is the Trans- port Bill. I am glad of this, because transport has occupied much of my political life. It is an important subject and affects the whole economy. It has, therefore, been fascinating to be so closely associated with the Bill. If it was, in many ways, a happy experience, this is not because the Bill, as it is, commends itself to me or to my party. It is impossible, because of limitations on Third Reading, to state again the ways in which I think that an integrated system of freight and passenger transport could be obtained.

But before I criticise the Bill I must say that there are some parts, and certain sections of others, which are entirely praiseworthy and which I wish had been introduced separately so that I could have supported the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who introduced the Bill when Minister of Transport. The Clauses dealing with the Railways Board, particularly the grants for unremunerative passenger services, the new bus grants and the additional assistance to bus operators by refunds on fuel duty are sound thinking and will be of genuine assistance to transport.

It is equally fair to mention the quality licensing system, which is aimed at improving road safety and the safety of drivers of heavy vehicles and the public. This legislation, which is overdue, will, in spite of some technical defects, be a valuable contribution to the already successful safety measures introduced by the previous Minister.

The new powers given to the nationalised boards are helpful so far as they permit those boards, particularly the Railways Board, to use spare capacity to produce goods which will assist our export drive and provide new opportunities of employment. I hope that this will prove to be a means of mopping up some of the surplus labour which will be a consequence of the streamlining of the railways system, and thus alleviate any hardship which might otherwise have occurred.

Part VII of the Bill, which will give new life to the inland waterways system, will also be welcomed, not only in the House but throughout the country. I pay respectful tribute here to hon. Members on both sides who have campaigned for many years in Parliament and in the country for the better use of this indigenous asset. No one has done more than the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) who was our superb and, I do not hesitate to say, beloved Chairman in Standing Committee F.

Alas, these are the main points of the Bill which deserve commendation. The reasons that the other parts are unacceptable to me and my party are because of the ideological differences between us— gulfs which cannot be bridged—which we recognised clearly in Standing Committee. Hon. Members opposite will not be surprised to hear me say that the overwhelming majority of these 255 pages contain Clauses which are reactionary Socialism at its worst.

There are provisions which will permit nationalised boards to enter into realms of retail trading which are divorced from transport and which will, I believe, be a genuine threat to the financial stability of business enterprise in the private sector. Equally, the local authorities are not, as the Minister has so often insisted, having additional powers in the matters which count. Instead, they will be over-ruled by the passenger transport authorities, which they do not want and which are not necessary.

Apart from the Ministerial nominees, who I concede will not be in the majority, local authorities will always be subject to majority decisions. Those of us who know something of the inevitable local rivalries, which are not necessarily always bad and which frequently lead to a healthy spirit of competition, also know how difficult it is likely to be to obtain a consensus which will not victimise smaller local authorities and their systems of communications. Too little thought has been given, in preparing this part of the Bill, to the consequences—particularly the new rights of rating authorities to make precepts on the rates for passenger transport services.

If Part I, which is headed "Integration of freight transport services", consisted only of Clause 6, which sets up the Freight Integration Council, it might be unexceptionable, but the powers of the Corporation as spelled out in Clause 2 and in the iniquitous Clause 5, which transfers to a subsidiary of the Freight Corporation 51 per cent. of the freight- liner service which has been promoted and is being operated so effectively by British Rail, are among the most needless, wasteful and totally unnecessary provisions of the Bill.

The freightliner service is an integral part of British Rail and we believe that it will be the most profitable of its services. It may be the means of reducing the debt of the Railways Board and providing an eventual profit if it is left under the control and management of that body However, this is not to be. We find it objectionable, also, that the Corporation should have such wide powers for providing additional freight services beyond those which are operated at present by the Transport Holding Co.

I have referred to Part II and the whittling down of the powers of municipal authorities over transport by the establishment of Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives. The right of the P.T.A.s to operate car parks, garages, and other forms of retail business is as needless as it is objectionable.

I know that I speak for my Scottish colleagues when I say that the establishment of the Scottish Group in Part III is not welcome to them or to their constituents and I do not believe it to be necessary for the efficient control of transport in that country.

The National Bus Company is another example of unnecessary extravagance and the formation of a new undertaking which adds nothing to our existing passenger transport service but will, I believe, be a grave threat to the private operator.

I have always had some reservations, which have been shared by hon. Members opposite, about the relaxation of control over certain bus services and the freedom which will be given to the many bus operators in Clauses 30 and 31. However, I do not pretend that, in this matter, I necessarily speak for my party. I am expressing a personal view which is shared by many hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I have said that we welcome Clauses 32, 33, 34 and certainly 36, but it is on Clause 45 that the real division between the two sides of the House and between the Government and the Liberal Party is seen with such stark clarity.

The powers of the new boards will be so sweeping that, as I said in Committee, there appears to be nothing to prevent them, particularly the Waterways Board, from selling whatever they choose, from matchboxes to monkeys. The only safeguard is that such activity must be commercially viable, although no one has explained how one can prove something to be commercially viable until one has had practical experience in trading, by which time much public money may have been wasted.

This Bill is perhaps unique in Parliamentary history, since it will cause a case which has been before the courts for four years to fall automatically.

Part V is a mixture of much that is good—I refer to quality licensing and much that is bad—and I refer to quantity licensing. I do not agree that all forms of quality licensing should be abolished, although the method that the Government propose to adopt will be wasteful and expensive and could cause serious delays and confusion in our vital export industries. I have greater faith than the Minister of Transport in British Rail's ability to compete, through its freight-liners, with the road haulage industry.

The drivers' hours provisions have never been properly debated here or in Standing Committee, because of the guillotine. Although it is necessary and right that there should be some changes in legislation which is now more than 30 years old, it is not right to make these blanket provisions, which will penalise the development areas and the remoter rural districts, which are in such need of encouragement and development.

We have not been able properly to debate the new Clauses which were introduced so late but this is not the time to comment upon their merits or otherwise. It is to be hoped that they will have proper attention in another place.

The Transport Bill of 1967 is almost at the end, in this House, of its long but unfortunately not very perilous journey. The Government majority has been used —some may think properly, others improperly—to ensure that it completed its passage far too quickly. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Minister has gone some way to meet our demands. Nearly 70 amendments of mine have been accepted either completely or in principle, and, of course, I am grateful for this, but my real hope lies in the next stage, for it is in another place that the radical dissection may take place which is necessary for this to be the valuable Act of Parliament which I accept was the intention of the right hon. Lady.

The Transport Bill may be said to have started as a Castle, the ramparts of which we on this side could not breach, and to have sunk now into a Marsh. Unhappily, the marsh has not submerged it. So I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading. I do so sorrowfully because I believe that we need a proper, integrated transport system, that the Government had the golden opportunity to introduce it and that, with the right approach and less ideological Socialism, they could have achieved the objective.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

As far as I can see there are in the country two main extreme views about transport. One suggests that every little village and every small town should have its own railway halt, whereas the other seems to suggest—and we have certainly heard it from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—that everything that moves is to be nationalised.

Personally, I believe that this Bill comes somewhere between the two, but because of the campaign that has been conducted I do not believe that anybody, in the House or outside, really appreciates that. It is fantastic when we find road hauliers absolutely convinced that they will not in any circumstances be allowed to take their vehicles a distance of more than 100 miles and when the main streets of certain constituencies can be completely blocked by road hauliers protesting against the Bill.

The road haulage industry and the Tory Party would have done more justice had they stuck to the Bill and to the facts, because if one totals up the money that has been spent by the Road Haulage Association in support of the Tory Party in 1950, 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1964 one sees that if that money could have been spent on implementing the quality licensing parts of the Bill and those parts of the Bill dealing with improving drivers' conditions and giving them better wages, then much of the Bill, including especially the quality licensing and drivers' hours provisions would not have been necessary. It is because money has been spent on these wrong purposes and has not been spent on the improvement of the road haulage industry that many parts of the Bill have been necessary, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it.

I am glad that at last we have come to the end of the Alice-in-Wonderland system of railway deficit financing. At last, we have a perfectly clear-cut division between those parts of the railways which are expected to pay their way and those parts which socially are very necessary. I only wish that some hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite had "come clean" on this, because it seems to me that in this year, as in 1962, there is no greater humbug than to see hon. Gentlemen opposite voting against the railway subsidies in this Bill, for when a line in their own constituencies comes up for "the chopper" they will be queueing up outside the Ministry of Transport asking for subsidies.

That is humbug and hypocrisy. To me The Bill represents a testimony of faith in public transport. It is a testimony of faith that is very much needed in that part of the country that I represent in the West Midlands, where we have a situation so serious that it will not wait for reform of the local authorities or for the Tory Party to come up with a hybrid scheme. It will not wait any longer than this year, and this Bill will do it.

I hope, therefore, that now that we have public passenger transport put on a democatic basis we can put an end to the vagaries and whims of the big bus companies like the Midland Red and others up and down the country which have held many of our constituencies to ransom. I praise the concept of the National Freight Corporation because under that concept it will be possible for a nationalised industry really to offer a comprehensive service. The transport service of the future will be one under which the Corporation can offer—and this is being done already by British Road Services—to take care of a firm's total distribution.

This is the kind of way in which transport is moving. This is the way in which transport is being speeded up by this Bill. Therefore, I am glad that we are to end this senseless competition between British Railways vehicles and British Road Services vehicles. That is a reasonable and sensible step.

I am also glad that, at last, we have taken the shackles off the manufacturing power of nationalised industry; because when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power they deliberately restricted the manufacturing power of the nationalised industries so that those industries could not produce at their lowest economic cost because of political bias. That was humbug and nonsense. By restricting those industries and keeping down their capacity, hon. Gentlemen opposite knew very well they were forcing up the cost per unit of output of the nationalised industries.

By putting in Clause 45 and increasing the range of manufacturing powers we have for the first time in history ensured that the Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation will not be at the mercy of private enterprise to whom in the past they have had to go for much of their equipment.

I do not like certain parts of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may have noticed that yesterday I abstained on certain provisions on quantity licensing which I do not find very palatable. But the abolition of the 1933 system of "A", "B" and "C" and contract licences and the freeing from the licensing provisions of about 900,000 vehicles and the concentration on vehicles travelling over 100 miles and carrying over 10 tons gross, is very sensible. I am glad to see that a great part of this was recommended in the Geddes Report. I challenge some hon. Gentlemen opposite to implement the conclusions of that Report of a Committee which they set up. They know that if they implemented its true findings their biggest enemies would be the Road Haulage Association.

It has amazed me that apart from the Cornish wisdom, which went slightly awry yesterday in regard to the distance between London and Penzance, hon. Gentlemen opposite should have claimed that the Cornish fishing industry is absolutely and utterly dependent on a longdistance lorry driver being able to work more than 10 hours—a fantastic claim— and that the whole industry depends on a man working such hours.

We have had similar arguments before, but those arguments were put forward over 150 years ago. They were the arguments of the Bradford textile mills and the Lancashire cotton mills. They were the arguments which put children of 12, and women, down the pits. Those were exactly the same kind of arguments that we had yesterday on drivers' hours from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

It is shocking that there should be an average working week of 58.9 hours, with 40 per cent. of the drivers working more than 60 hours a week, and that a fortnight ago, in Banbury, drivers went on strike for a 68-hour guaranteed week. If this kind of thing still exists then I am in support of doing something about drivers' hours.

On quality licensing, some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said standards are too high; and they have quibbled on some points. But of 142,831 vehicles examined in roadside checks in England and Wales a total of 55,000 were found to fail the test and so bad was the position revealed by those checks that almost 13,000 vehicles had to be taken off the road straight away. What a terrible indictment of an industry which has been spending so much money against this Bill and in support of the Tory Party!

This has been a long Bill and it has had a long passage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has felt himself able to spend £10,000 against it; but to me it seems that we have, at last, a Minister who has done something about the problem of canals, who has written into the Bill a testimony of faith in public transport and has shown that we have a Government that believes in the railways. I do not believe that that is a crime and I am glad that at last something has been done to make the road haulage industry of this country "grow up."

11.10 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)

It is not easy to describe my feelings about the Bill in five minutes, but I shall try, as I have promised to keep to that time.

Throughout the Committee stage I was chiefly concerned with the licensing provisions, and it is on that part of the Bill that I should like to speak now. It was monstrous that this part of the Committee stage was so ruthlessly guillotined, for this meant that many aspects of both quality and quantity licensing were never properly discussed. The whole question of quality licensing is not very contentious, and the Opposition's purpose throughout the Committee stage was to try to keep the red tape and bureaucracy down to the minimum.

I particularly resented the fact that, in Committee, we never discussed the new concept of transport managers' licences. I realise how unfortunate that was when we reached Report, because the Minister told us then that he was having discussions with all the interested parties, and it was clear from his speech that he had little idea of how the new concept would work in practice. He threw out the interesting idea that a farmer could appoint the local garage as his transport manager. It was a pity that we did not have a chance to point out in Committee some of the very obvious snags of such a suggestion.

I was also particularly disappointed that our Amendments to exclude fleets of one and two vehicles from the transport manager provisions was not accepted. Our Amendment would have helped to make the project work in a more practical way.

I also resented very much the fact that we never discussed the procedure for appeals against revocation of operators' licences. But I am glad that the Government agreed to accept our Amendment providing that appeals shall be made to the Transport Tribunal and not to the Minister. That is an important and fundamental change which will certainly improve the Bill.

I now turn to quantity licensing. The effect of the Guillotine in Committee was particularly vicious here. A great deal of the detail has never been discussed either in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House. This is a scandal because the objection to quantity licensing is practical; my hon. Friends and I and the Liberal Members believe that it will not work in practice. The Minister complained this morning that we raised individual cases one after another in Committee. He seemed to think that it was a waste of time to spend five minutes discussing, for example, forestry or horticulture. This discloses the Government's wrong attitude to the problem. It is not only the road haulage industry that will be affected, but every branch of industry up and down the country. I do not believe that we wasted any time in drawing the Government's attention to these points.

I am certain that the licensing authorities throughout the country know only too well now that their task under the Bill will be utterly impossible. We have said a hundred times, and I repeat once more, that our objection to quantity licensing is that it interferes with consumer choice and tries to substitute State direction for commercial judgment.

If I had to single out one aspect of the system which best emphasises its utter stupidity, I would mention the question of return journeys. The road haulage industry depends on return loads to keep down its costs. That is why the whole question of what we described in Committee as general blanket authorisations became so vital in our discussions. Only if the authorisations are issued on a general and not a special basis, will some flexibility be introduced into the system. At no time did the Government explain how this difficulty could possibly be overcome.

That is only one of the many insuperable objections to the whole foolish plan. The criteria to be considered by the licensing authorities are still wholly inadequate. The list of exempted goods is far too small. The licensing procedure is far too cumbersome and too slow. The system is restrictive, Socialist, and above all, theoretical rather than practical.

So, at the end of many days and nights, we have produced a thoroughly bad Bill. This is disappointing after 200 hours of hard labour. But there is one gleam of light. We are told that the quantity licensing provisions will not come into effect for another two years. Before that time expires, I am confident that this foolish, wrong-headed Government will no longer be in charge of transport or of anything else.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

I shall confine my remarks to about two minutes, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have sat here for many hours and I should like as many as possible to have the opportunity of speaking. Many charges have been made against the Bill. One is that it has been steam-rollered through the House and that there has not been sufficient time for consideration. But we have debated it for about 220 hours. The OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings weighs about 4¼ lbs. I have here a copy of Plato's "Republic", which weighs 1 lb. and deals with the whole of human endeavour. The charges made against the Bill are pure exaggeration.

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), in reference to Clause 45 and the manufacturing powers of British Railways' workshops, talked the other day in terms of setting up oil refineries, and steelworks. When I challenged him on the Floor of the House, he said to me, "Find the column." I found it later in the day and although I could not make him say it in the House, he saw me privately later and said that he had found it himself, and that if I had found it in the House he would have withdrawn his allegation.

Apart from the exaggeration and innuendo, and the great political campaign outside, we had a very enjoyable Committee stage. There have been many happy moments.

The hon. Member who impressed me, apart from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Transport, was the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). He has been very kind and tolerant, and I am sure that we enjoyed the whole of the 200 hours we worked upstairs with him.

It was a jolly Committee, and a great deal of good work has been done. There was a good deal of political banter, but we have taken the opportunity of according each other our gratitude for the work done. I need not repeat names mentioned earlier, and, therefore, I give way now to allow other hon. Members to speak.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

The basic fault of the Bill is that which affects so much of Labour Party thinking on transport. The Government do not appreciate that transport is always a means to an end and not the end. A person transports himself or his goods from one point to another for purposes that are entirely his own affair, and because individuals are so different it is impossible for the gentlemen in Whitehall or anybody else to estimate with any degree of accuracy exactly how much of any particular form of transport the public want. If one relies on a number of private enterprise firms some will go to the wall, because they will mistakenly suppose that some form of transport is required which, in fact, the public do not want.

If one tries to centralise transport into large organisations, mistakes are bound to be made because the pattern changes all the time, and not on any logical system. It is just a question of whim, fancy and fashion very often. It is very difficult for a central organisation to estimate how much is required. The Bill increases the powers of the central organisation. It concentrates the bus services and puts haulage into bigger units. Therefore, I think that it will be found to make matters more difficult and not to be an improvement on the 1962 Act, in which we tried to provide a greater degree of flexibility of competition. We tried to estimate what was required, but we did not attempt to do so with any degree of accuracy.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. James Bennett (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

This reminds me of end-of-term day, with people patting each other on the back, and there is no reason why I should not indulge in doing so. I join the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and the Minister of State in their tribute to the Chairman of the Standing Committee. I also join in the tribute to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). Undoubtedly, this has been a happy Committee.

I achieved a certain amount of success with one or two of my Amendments. At the same time, I must voice my own fears about quantity licensing; but I will not go too deeply into that. I sincerely hope that what I think will happen will not happen. We can be honest at this late stage of the game. In spite of the reservations I had about quantity licensing I voted for it in the Standing Committee.

I am disappointed in one thing. I received certain assurances about worker participation and I was happy about this. My happiness was short-lived when I came to read the Bill. I hoped that passenger transport authorities would be set up for Scotland. II ever that happens I hope that worker participation will be effective, since the assurances I received suggested that worker participation could come only from outside the area of the P.T.A., and that would mean that representatives would have to come from Carlisle, which is out of the question.

I have enjoyed working on the Bill with my colleagues on both sides of the House. I am not an expert in transport. Having listened to some of them, I am glad that I am not. That we have established a record in the Standing Committee does not mean a great deal, but the fact that each of us has gained knowledge of what could happen, and what we would like to happen in transport, should make us better legislators. I welcome the Bill.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodridge)

Time is running short, and this is a feature which has characterised the Bill in all its stages. I had intended to start by paying a tribute and by itemising points of controversy, but instead I will draw the attention of the House to one or two more general matters which have struck me during the passage of the Bill.

We should be concerned about the financial disciplines of the P.T.A.s and the accessibility of the P.T.A.s to Parliamentary Committees. The National Bus Co., the National Freight Corporation and British Railways will be open to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The position about the passenger transport authorities, which represent a large sector of public transport, is not clear. If that side is to be dealt with by the Estimates Committee there will be a division of attention which could be to the detriment of transport as a whole.

On the National Freight Corporation, my persuasion is in terms of the set-up with which the Government have come forward. I prefer the functional concept here, but I was impressed with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) when he wound up the debate on Tuesday on the loss of the freight-liner service to British Railways. The Government must take heed of this point in stripping down the railways' management attractions.

As regards British Railways, I compliment the Government on the terms of the managerial structure which is propounded in the White Paper, although, at the same time, we must have severe misgivings about the lack of management techniques in the railways which is revealed in the White Paper.

The size of the Bill is something which has made a direct impact on all members of the Committee and on hon. Members of the House. Could I underline the impact on industry? Only a few weeks ago, in my capacity as chairman of a public company, I asked the secretary of that company to prepare a list informing me of major legislative changes since 1964. I imagined that I should be able to set up a table to highlight the main features in the middle of the printed list. However, my secretary came forward with five closely typed quarto pages containing legislative and other changes of an important nature which have come about since 1964. I counsel the Government on the dreadful impaot of the licensing changes on industry.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

I join in the general chorus of praise to every member of the Standing Committee. The members of the Standing Committee will, I hope, in the not-too-far-distant future be cruising down the canals, with the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

I cannot go all the way with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) when he made a reference to the 1962 Act and its flexibility.

I welcome the Bill on behalf of rail-waymen who, for too long, have had a raw deal at the expense of road haulage. The integration of railways and road haulage is something that some of us have longed for and therefore, on behalf of the railwaymen, I give the Bill my blessing.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

As the shadow of the Guillotine comes upon us once again there is regret that many of our colleagues have been unable to participate in even the Third Reading of the Bill. May I pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Standing Committee—who is now blushing and wriggling—for his excellent chairmanship over a long period? This he performed single-handed save for a few seconds when the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) took the Chair. To have taken the Chair so skilfully is a distinguished achievement.

May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). I was sorry to hear that he would not be coming back to Parliament but I hope, if one may conjecture on Third Reading, that he will return, possibly in a different guise.

I also pay tribute to the Minister of State, who has shown tremendous stamina. He has been most courteous, and has done his best to give us answers; sometimes he has given us two or three answers! We have been grateful for the way in which he has persevered. It has been an extraordinary mental and physical achievement, and I hope that he enjoys the Whitsun Recess. I have heard that he had a dream as a result of which he woke up screaming. He had a vision that the Prime Minister had sent him a message to say that in the Birthday Honours he would be sent to another place as a Lord-in-Waiting to steer this Bill through the other place.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) I give heartiest congratulations. He has received a few remarks from the other side which no doubt he would have been surprised not to receive, but his achievement on Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and in the country has been to demonstrate the true facts of the Bill and to challenge the Government. The fact that we have had so many Amendments accepted and passed is a tribute to the Tightness of his judgment. I am sure that the whole distributive industry is grateful for his achievements, his efforts and his dynamism.

Today, we are seeing the twin legacy of two people who were, at the beginning of the Bill, the Minister of Transport and the Leader of the House. The erstwhile Leader of the House has reduced the arrangements in this building to sheer chaos—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it has been proved throughout the whole of this week. In her turn, the former Minister of Transport, with her Left-wing doctrinaire views, has endeavoured to reduce the distributive industry to near-chaos.

Mr. Leadbitter

Cheap.

Mr. Webster

The hon. Member says "Cheap", but the former Minister of Transport is well known to have sought to get control of distribution and production. In terms of the distribution of people in the public transport authorities, it was her intention to set up Leviathans to gain control of the whole of the transport undertakings in those areas, and they themselves were to be controlled from Whitehall by methods which have been discussed both in Committee and in Report. They were to be controlled by the veto of the chairman, controlled by one-seventh of the members being appointed directly from Whitehall, and controlled by the right to withhold infra-structure grants.

In addition, these bodies would have had to precept their ratepayers for the railway deficits in their areas, which would have been very substantial. Without appeal, without objection and without compensation, they would have taken over the whole of the ratepayers' property in terms of transport—bus undertakings, vehicles and property. Nothing in this monstrous exercise would ensure that better conditions would be created for the travelling public.

Equally, the right hon. Lady sought to get control of the distribution of goods, in terms of quantity control. In that connection, one is thrown back repeatedly to what the Prime Minister said when he was appointed Leader of the Opposition in 1963 and went to Washington, where the Americans asked him—

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Prime Minister's visit to Washington in 1963 anything to do with the magnificent concept which this Bill represents?

Mr. Depnty Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

This is a very large Bill and it covers a very wide area.

Mr. Webster

The answer to that point of order is, "Yes". The Prime Minister was asked whether he would nationalise the road haulage industry, as was done in 1947. He said: We will not nationalise it as we did in 1947 and pay excessive compensation to every broken-dewn vehicle and every back-street garage. What we will do is to take the lid off the already nationalised British Road Services. That is what the quantity control aspect has been designed to do, both by an increasing economic burden in the private sector, whether it is the existing A or C licences, and also by direction of the most valuable loads on to the railways, and on to the nationalised sector. It was to be nationalisation by bankruptcy, no doubt bankrupting the industry but equally, by giving increasing moneys to the British Transport Holding Company so that it could acquire the bankrupted private sector by the back door.

Again, with her Marxist beliefs, the former Minister wanted to get control of distribution and production in Clause 45, by giving to any of the nationalised industries the right to manufacture, distribute and sell any item to do with any of their industries. That, surely, is the second part of what Karl Marx insisted should be done.

Now we come to the end of the first Commons stage. Fifty Clauses in this massive contentious Measure have not been debated. It is the longest Bill ever to be put before Parliament. It has been guillotined time and time again. Representations on behalf of the industry and on behalf of our citizens have been cut short and, as a result, the House has been unable to give an adequate review to this disastrous Bill.

It is not for us to say what will happen in another place. However, in the context of what was the intention of the Bill and the manner in which it has been handled by the Government, there is obviously the closest need for a thorough review by a second Chamber. The stage is now set for that and for the constitutional consequences which might flow from it. One wonders, thinking of the Prime Minister, whether part of it is a deliberate attempt to stir up the constitutional issue between the two Houses. It is a matter which should be considered as the summer continues.

The consequences of it will be seen. There is a need to secure the discussion of these parts of the Bill that were not discussed in the House. There will be a need to ensure that Amendments are carried that were not carried in this House, some of which might well be substantial. Then it will be for Parliament to decide what is to be the future of the Bill and of Parliament, because both the distributive industry and democracy itself are at great risk, and no one in Parliament today should ignore the challenge presented to it.

I urge my hon. Friends to throw out the Bill on Third Reading.

11.38 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

Like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) started his speech by making a generous reference to my responsibilities during the course of the Bill's passage through the House. I am grateful to them for their kind words, though the rest of their speeches made it plain that this was not in any way a process of political conversion.

Whatever may be thought of my performance in the course of our proceedings, I would have found it quite impossible had I not been sustained and stimulated by a large number of people. I know that it is unusual in the House to do this, but I would mention, first, my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), who has been in constant attendance and whose unfailing advice has served me very well. Second, I should mention my advisers, who have toiled hard and long, literally night and day, dealing with the multitude of inquiries made of them. Third, I want to mention the Chairman of the Standing Committee, whose unfailing courtesy and kindness to all of those who went through the 191¼ hours of our proceedings contributed very much to our debates. Fourth, I would refer to my colleagues on this side of the House who gave unstinted loyal support, to which from time to time was added their constructive criticism and advice. Finally, I pay tribute to my critics and opponents. It may be that I would not have acquired during the past week all the instincts for survival that I now have had it not been for their provocative attitude. I owe them a debt, too.

Echoing The Times of the other day—I know that my right hon. Friend would wish me to do this—I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. The Times said, in a typically critical article, that the nation owed her a debt of gratitude for this Bill. My right hon. Friend initiated it, and had the audacity to grasp the nettle —just as she had the audacity to introduce the breathalyser—in face of a great deal of criticism and unpopularity. That measure, I think, worked, or at any rate is working. So I think that her part in this Bill should be recalled now.

Any transport Bill worth the name in modern times is bound to be massive and highly controversial as this Bill is, because such is the clash of interests, such the sectional pressures and prejudices, and such the need for more accurate information, scientific study and especially cost-benefit analysis in the transport world, that any transport Bill worth the name is bound to be highly controversial.

On my calculation, we have taken 245 hours since the end of January on the Bill. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) complains that it was not enough. I believe that all critics and opponents of future transport Measures will complain that the time spent on them will not be enough because it is the nature of the Opposition that for some kinds of the measure they demand infinite time to discuss them in the hope of killing them.

That is why hon. Members opposite felt it necessary to guillotine the 1962 Bill,. That is why there has been a long series of such occasions. There comes however, a time for decision, and Parliament must come to a conclusion on the sort of transport policy and transport laws it wants. The 245 hours we have spent since January have been long hours which have covered a very wide range of the subject matters in the measure.

Secondly, I believe that a reason why any transport Measure is bound to be massive is that all its parts, as in this Bill, are inter-related. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) was wrong in suggesting that the parts of the Bill should be produced as separate measures, as if they could be adequately and properly discussed in isolation one from another. What is contained in this Bill, a policy for reorganising the railways which gives them a different financial and organisational structure, for introducing an integrated freight service involving a reorganisation of our nationalised enterprises, for the reform of the licensing system, for the establishment of passenger transport authorities in our cities, and for giving wider traffic powers to local authorities —all these subjects are inter-related.

It is not possible, as we endeavoured to show in the White Papers we issued, to divorce one from another. They interact upon each other. We have aimed here, and this Bill represents the endeavour, to get the integration that we need. People have been talking for so long about this, but very few measures have been taken to implement it. We inherited a disintegrated state of affairs as a result of the 1962 Act.

We faced a situation of mounting congestion in our cities. We faced a situation, as my right hon. Friend said, where impossible remits had been given to so many of the nationalised enterprises. Therefore, all these parts of the Bill, which can all be easily sectionally opposed if considered in isolation as our proceedings have shown—quantity licensing, quality licensing, P.T.A.s, and so on—must be related one to the: other because they are part of an integrated plan to provide this country with a transport system that will really serve the community.

Therefore, I reject the complaints made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for Worcester about the lack of time. I support what my right hon. Friend said when opening this debate. I do not think that the Opposition have made very intelligent use of the time in discussion of these parts of the Bill. That is understandable, because while there is in the Bill a strong sense of priorities there is no correspondingly strong sense of priorities in the Opposition. It is quite understandable that an in-

ordinate amount of time has been given to discussing relatively trivial matters in the Bill, at the expense of the amount of time which might otherwise have been given to some of the major policies involved in it.

That has not been our responsibility. More time has been given to this Measure than I believe to any other that has been introduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the longest."] I said that a transport Bill worth the name is bound to be a massive Measure, is bound, also, to be highly controversial. More time has been devoted to it, a record number of columns of HANSARD have been filled with the contributions to our debates, and I believe that, at the end of the day, the Bill will be recognised as an important milestone on the way to establishing in Britain the integrated transport system which we need.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East) (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that I have been unable to get into the Division Lobby owing to the congestion of traffic in Parliament Square? Is it not possible, in these circumstances, to call a new Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman was inconvenienced, but it is not possible, for the reason he has given, to call another Division.

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 225.

Division No. 205.]	AYES	[11.46 a.m.
Abse, Leo	Booth, Albert	Conlan, Bernard
Albu, Austen	Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Boydon, James	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Alldritt, Walter	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Crawshaw, Richard
Anderson, Donald	Bradley, Tom	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Archer, Peter	Brooks, Edwin	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Armstrong, Ernest	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Dalyell, Tam
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Barnes, Michael	Buchan, Norman	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strctford)
Barnett, Joel	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Baiter, William	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Benn. Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Delargy, Hugh
Bennett, Jamss (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Cant, R. B.	Dell, Edmund
Bidwell, Sydney	Carmichael, Neil	Dempsey, James
Binns, John	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dewar, Donald
Bishop, E. S.	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Blackburn, F.	Chapman, Donald	Dickens, James
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Coe, Denis	Dobson, Ray
Boardman, H, (Leigh)	Coleman, Donald	Doig, Peter
Driberg, Tom	Judd, Frank	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dunn, James A.	Kelley, Richard	Pentland, Norman
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lawson, George	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dunwoody, Or. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Leadbitter, Ted	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Eadie, Alex	Ledger, Ron	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Edelman, Maurice	Lee, John (Reading)	Price, William (Rugby)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Probert, Arthur
Edwards, William (Mrioneth)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Ellis, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Randall, Harry
English, Michael	Lomas, Kenneth	Rankin, John
Ennals, David	Loughlin, Charles	Rees, Merlyn
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Reynolds, G. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Richard, Ivor
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McBride, Neil	Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Forrester, John	McCann, John	Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)
Fowler, Gerry	MacColl, James	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	MacDermot, Niall	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Freeson, Reginald	Macdonald, A. H.	Rose, Paul
Gardner, Tony	McGuire, Michael	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Garrett, W. E.	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Ryan, John
Gourlay, Harry	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mackintosh, John P.	Sheldon, Robert
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Maclennan, Robert	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Gregory, Arnold	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Grey, Charles (Durham)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Slater, Joseph
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Snow, Julian
Gunter,Rt.Hn R. J.	Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Manuel, Archie	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Micheal
Hamling, William	Marks, Kenneth	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Hannan, William	Marquand, David	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Harrison Walter (Wakefield)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Swain, Thomas
Haseldine Norman	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Swingler, Stephen
Hazell Bert	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Symonds, J. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Mendelson, J. J.	Taverne, Dick
Henig, Stanley	Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton W S	Millan, Bruce	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, X' town)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Thornton, Ernest
Hooley Frank	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Tinn, James
Hought'on, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Mitchell, R.C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Tomney, Frank
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Molloy, William	Urwin, T. W.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Varley, Eric G.
Howell Denis (Small Heath)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)
Howie, W.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hoy, James	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Watkins, David (Consett)
Huckfield, Leslie	Moyle, Roland	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Murray, Albert	Wellbeloved, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Neal, Harold	Whitaker, Ben
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Newens, Stan	white, Mrs. Eirene
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Oakes, Gordon	Whitlock, William
Hunter, Adam	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hynd, John	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Oram, Albert E.	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Orme, Stanley	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Mitchin)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Oswald, Thomas	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Sir Barnett	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	winnick, David
Jeger, George (Goole)	Paget, R. T.	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Palmer, Arthur	Woof, Robert
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Chares	Yates, Victor
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Park, Trevor
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pavitt, Laurence	Mr. J. D. Concannon and
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Mr. loan L. Evans
NOES
Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bessell, Peter	Brewis, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Biffen, John	Brinton, Sir Tatton
Astor, John	Biggs-Davison, John	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Awdry, Daniel	Black, Sir Cyril	Bryan, Paul
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Blaker, Peter	Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N& M)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Balniel, Lord	Body, Richard	Bullus, Sir Eric
Batsford, Brian	Bossom, Sir Clive	Burden, F. A.
Bell, Ronald	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Campbell, Gordon
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got. & Fhm)	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Braine, Bernard	Cary, Sir Robert

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

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve o'clock a.m.