§ Lords Amendment No. 57: In page 72, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Carmichael
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to take, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 58, in page 73, line 7, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection".
§ Mr. Carmichael
I beg to move, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This subsection deals with the powers of the Railways Board in running hotels. There has already been a very full discussion on the whole question of the powers of nationalised industries to diversify and to make the best of their existing assets and skills where they can do so without detriment to their primary functions. The proposal in these Amendments not to extend the hotel powers of the Board might be considered to be a special case of the discussion that we had earlier, but I think that it is a particularly weak one.
The Railways Board and its predecessor, the old companies and the British 640 Transport Commission, have run hotels for a great many years. At present, the Board owns over 30 hotels, and makes a very useful profit from them. Its hotel business employs about 12,000 people. In short, the Board is in the hotel business in a big way and undoubtedly knows a great deal about it.
But under the 1962 Act the Railways Board cannot put this expertise to as much use as it might. It is restricted to putting hotelswhere those using the railway services provided by the Board may require them, for use both by those and other persons".
§ Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)
The hon. Gentleman said that 12,000 people were employed. For the purpose of Selective Employment Tax, could he say how many males and how many females there are?
§ Mr. Carmichael
I have not the figures offhand, but I will get them and let the hon. Member have them later. I should imagine that the proportions will be much the same as in the hotel industry generally. I am sure that there will be no great difference.
I suggest that the principle that the hotels should be only at railheads or where there are railway connections is a hangover from the days when there was virtually no other transport, particularly long distance transport, and, therefore, travellers were only too willing to put up in railway hotels or to get shelter near the railheads when they arrived in a strange place. Then they could be expected to welcome and pay for the hotel accommodation that the railways provided.
But I believe that times have changed a great deal since then. The Railways Board has acquired a good deal of knowledge of the hotel business. So I think that, while, in future, much of the business should still be closely related to the trains and the potential railway passengers, the increase in other forms of transport makes this restriction more and more out-of-date and more and more ridiculous.
In Committee on this subsection, in both Houses, supporters of the present restriction seemed unable to make up their minds whether they would be doing the Railways Board a kindness in keeping it out of what they claimed is a risky 641 and potentially money-consuming business, or whether they were merely protecting the private sector from nationalised industries getting into a profitable line of business. Perhaps someone could explain what the real objection to the subsection is.
In this connection we talked a great deal in the last debate about ideological differences and differences in principle. This is a case where the Railways Board or its predecessors have run hotels for a long time. I believe that this is not a case of setting up a boot factory in the middle of Birmingham, but rather one of doing something very relevant to the job that the Railways Board is already highly skilled in doing.
There is no intention that the Board should expand its hotel activities except where it can do so advantageously. The Minister's control over their capital ex-psnditure is a good insurance in this respect. The Minister made a reference earlier to the difficulty of getting money out of the Treasury as against getting it from certain private sources, and this is very relevant. Anyone who has tried to get money out of the Treasury knows that close scrutiny is given to the case that is made.
The Railways Board has been in the habit of making a profit on the hotel industry. It has been said that the profit is not enough; the Government would certainly not accept this. The hotel business generally has been going through a rather bad time recently and there is no evidence to show that the railways are having a poorer time than anyone else in the industry.
§ Mr. Bessell
The railways are in a special position in relation to hotels. Most of their hotels are very old buildings which have long since been depreciated from a capital point of view. The problems experienced in the private sector arise because modern hotels cost a large amount of money to build and there is difficulty in recouping the capital. That is a very different issue.
§ Mr. Carmichael
The railways also have some modern hotels. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Some railway hotels are 80 to 100 years old and at this stage running costs shoot up. I have been to many railway hotels, too many in the last few months when 642 I have made a tour of the railways, a very exhausting but interesting tour. The idea of a modern hotel being built to such glorious dimensions as the Royal Hotel, at York, is out of the question; in modern terms, I suppose that this would be wasted space. The problem almost balances itself out, so that the running costs in large railway hotels must be quite high and, on the other hand, the railways have one or two modern hotels. They have this experience of hotels and it would be wrong if they were not allowed to exploit it.
§ Mr. Gower
The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention another advantage which railway hotels have enjoyed, and that is their proximity to railway termini. Under this proposal they will abandon this great advantage. This advantage has enabled them to function more profitably than other railway enterprises. They are now to abandon this advantage and go into places which are unconnected with railway termini.
§ Mr. Carmichael
They are not abandoning the advantage. What has happened is that the railways are abandoning their hotels as new forms of transport appear. We are suggesting that the railways should be given power still to provide for travellers—not necessarily by rail but by other means—the good service that they have had from the hotel industry in the past.
The hotels will be under an obligation to act as though they were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. We are proposing to amend new Clause F—Amendment No. 176—so as to embrace the power in this subsection for the Railways Board to own its hotels. It is difficult to see that private enterprise hotels have any real grounds for complaining about the extension of the railway hotel powers. If hon. Members are honest, they will recognise that the railways have even now a number of hotels which are some distance from rail terminii, and which are run very profitably.
I believe that in most parts of the country railway hotels are among the best-run hotels to be found. Therefore, quite apart from the doctrinaire argument, I do not see why the community should be deprived of the expertise of the railway hotel people within the nationalised railway industry to run these hotels and, 643 whenever they can, to extend them to places where, if the present form is continued, they would give a good jerk to private enterprise in the running of their hotels, particularly in provincial cities.
I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendments after the statement I have made and the assurance I have given that the railway hotels will continue to be run on a purely commercial basis.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
The Minister has presented his case in the penetrating and lucid way we expect from him, but, on the other hand, he has not convinced me that the Government's proposals are sensible or correct. The policy put forward by the Government makes me doubt their sanity. They are seeking to give British Railways the power to become hoteliers in Great Britain and outwith Great Britain throughout the world. They are seeking the right to set up hotels from Bangkok to Blackpool and from Saigon to Skegness. It is another example of the financial irresponsibility and lunacy which is all too typical of this spendthrift Government.
At the present time there are no intolerable restrictions placed on the railways. Their powers are clearly set out in Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1962. The words are:The British Railways Board shall have power to provide hotels in places where those using the railway services provided by the Board may require them …The power is not restricted to railheads or stations. In other words, the absurd restriction which has been mentioned is not a real one. There is no case for this wide and sweeping power, which could be abused.
The Minister said that we need not worry because there is the safeguard that it will be the Minister of Transport himself who will exercise this authority. What safeguard is this, bearing in mind that this is the same Minister who in the duration of this Parliament has spent £600 million of public money nationalising the great steel industry? This is yet another example of a further extension of State participation in industry and commerce. I doubt if the full extent of the insidious, creeping nationalisation 644 which has taken place under the Government has been appreciated. It would be wrong to dwell on that point, but hon. Members may remember the Iron and Steel Bill, the I.R.C. and the infamous Clause 45 which we have just discussed.
Surely the railways have enough problems on their plate without taking up scarce management resources in running a chain of hotels all over the country. The one task which the railways are equipped to do and on which they have knowledge and expertise is the running of trains. It is typical of the folly of the Government that within the last two days we have taken away from British Railways their one expanding railway function of liner trains and given them power to set up petrol stations in Pennsylvania and hotels in Honolulu.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I know how keen hon. Members are, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to this Amendment.
§ Mr. Taylor
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was doing so. In this extension of the powers of the railways to set up hotels we have to consider the competition which this will prevent in the private sector. Can this be fair competition and is the basis of accountancy such that this would be in the public interest? The last report of the Railways Board states that the present capital value of the hotels is round about £8 million. We must also take into account the capital equipment, which is just over £10 million. If the Minister insists that this is fair competition, the question he must answer is, when was the last revaluation of the assets of British Railway hotels?
The fact is that there has not been a real revaluation for many years, and my impression, backed up by the opinion of experts to whom I have spoken, is that £10 million does not even reflect the site values of British Rail Hotels, let alone the value of the buildings themselves [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is disputing this, as he always seems to dispute sensible points, he may have heard the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who has wide experience of property development and hotels, saying that in his opinion and that of his colleagues the figure of £10 million did not even reflect the site value.
§ Mr. Manuel
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) into this because we are very friendly and agree about hotel policy. It is advantageous during debates on the Floor of the House, or in Committee, to know the identity of an authority which is quoted. Can the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the person who has given him this assurance? If not it is quite pointless.
§ Mr. Taylor
I would challenge the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to state any opinion which I have given here or in Committee, which he has found to be incorrect. On what grounds does he think the figure of £10 million is anything near the real and accurate figure?
§ Mr. Bessell
May I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely right in suggesting that the figure of £10 million is totally inadequate. One would only need to take the site values of British Flail hotels in the London area alone to know that this figure is utterly ridiculous.
§ Mr. Taylor
As always, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin for confirming what I believed to be the case—that I was right about the figure of £10 million being a nonsense. When we are talking in terms of percentages, profits and returns, a percentage which has been used is in relation to the ridiculous figure of £10 million. A return of 5 per cent. 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. on £10 million would look quite different if we had the real values of British Rail hotels.
I do not accept the balance sheet profit on which the Minister is basing his argument as being in any way a real one. I would suggest to the Minister, if he is looking for these extra powers, that the very least to which the private sector is entitled is an assurance that this extention of powers will be on the basis of fair competition, and that there will be a full revaluation of the assets of these hotels.
In support of his case the Minister said these hotels were "very profitable". I wonder on what basis he used those words? He could perhaps look to the fact that in 1965 the working surplus was £880,000. He may have seen, too, that the last annual working surplus was £813,000, a slight reduction. What was 646 not mentioned was that in a footnote to the accounts it was pointed out that because of a change in the allowance on depreciation to take account of the lives of the hotels the decrease in this depreciation charge had been less than £226,00 in 1967. If we take it on the basis of book values, which we believe are completely out of date, the return is quite inadequate and is certainly not a rising return.
If a proper revaluation was ever carried out the return would be proved to be absolutely ludicrous. In those circumstances it is wrong for the Government to suggest pouring more money into acquiring hotels, when they should be putting more money into the business of the railways. The Minister said that there was, in addition to his assurance, a second assurance, that of the Treasury. He said that so long as the Treasury was there and so long as we have the cold, hard hands of the Treasury making sure that money comes out slowly, we have nothing to fear from this extension allowing the railways to set up hotels all over the world.
The Minister should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for putting an argument like this at a time when British Rail are so short of money for expansion of their own functions, in which they have met with success, and of which they have special knowledge. The National Plan laid down £135 million as being the basic investment for British Rail. This has been successively cut to £120 million, £104 million and there are further cuts in the 1968–69 allocation. It is true that the Treasury is very difficult with money, and surely any money available should be spent on railway modernisation not on the extension of fringe activities. The Minister must be aware of how desperately anxious the railways are to continue electrification work to Glasgow—an expensive item. The money is not there. Are we to be told that the money is not there for major electrification work, but it is there for a world extension into hotel building?
It is in the interests of British Rail to concentrate their attention, finance, and all their energies on the essential matter of running the railways, and not to hive off their interests, money and abilities into fringe activities. I challenge the Minister to tell us the real value of British Rail hotels. I then 647 challenge him to say, on the basis of that, what the return is. In those circumstances this House would be well advised to throw out this ridiculous Amendment.
We all know that the Government say "Do not worry about these powers because we will not use them. Why should British Rail want to build hotels in Bangkok or Lhasa? Clearly they would not. We have sensible, sane Ministers in the Government, who will make sure that these powers are used properly."
Our experience is that this is not a Government which tends to make sensible decisions. For them to say that it is a safeguard is really no safeguard for us. We do not want to prevent British Rail from running hotels. We are prepared to leave things as they are, to let them run hotels as they are at present. We hope that under a Conservative Government we might obtain better profits, we hope that new and expert management techniques might be introduced. The Government have not made out any case for this ludicrous and wide extension of powers. We suggest that there is no case, and that the Governments' arguments should be forcibly rejected.
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
I do not want to dwell on the doctrinaire argument to which the Minister referred. I share the views expressed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and think that this is a form of under-cover nationalisation.
§ Mr. Farr
It would enable the Railways Board to erect hotels not only anywhere in the United Kingdom but anywhere in the world. If the Minister is to reply, I would ask him to reconsider this. Can he tell me what is the reason for insisting that the Railways Board has the right to erect hotels anywhere it likes? The pattern of the successful Railways Board hotels, which the Minister explained a little while ago, has developed because those very hotels have been in the past, and are today, adjacent to or in conjunction with a railway line. Passengers using the railway line can spend the night there. That is a successful pattern of operation, but what is the point in disrupting it and giving the Railways 648 Board powers to erect hotels anywhere in the country?
It is even more extraordinary that the Government should seek to give the Board this power when the Board is shedding itself of hundreds of miles of useful track. I can name quite large communities which in recent years have had their railway services completely withdrawn. It seems to be an utter anachronism that at the same time the Board should be seeking power to construct hotels quite divorced from railway lines.
I want to comment on a pattern of activity employed by B.O.A.C. in sensible investment in hotels throughout the world. That is a sensible sort of employment of funds. Air passengers are channelled into B.O.A.C. by this method and at the same time B.O.A.C. is able to keep the hotels profitably employed. But B.O.A.C. has never been stupid enough even to contemplate erecting hotels miles away from its routes, and the Minister will find that all its investments in hotels, which began in 1966 and 1967, are on its major money-making routes and are serving useful purposes with that in mind.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting the excellent facilities of the Turnberry Hotel in the very beautiful constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It was built for golfers, not for rail passengers, and it was certainly not built in the period of the Labour Government. I do not think he has ever opposed the operation of that hotel.
§ Mr. Farr
I am not familiar with all the hotels in the wilds of Scotland. I have no doubt that it is serving a vital purpose, but the general pattern is for railway hotels to be associated with railway lines.
I intervene only to ask the Minister to get the Railways Board to concentrate on running railways properly. Some mixed compliments have been paid to the Board today. I do not think that it is doing a very good job. It has plenty on its plate without seeking to run hotels, and I implore the Minister not to seek these wild and extravagant powers the use of which nobody in the country will ever approve.
§ Mr. John Hynd
I should like shortly to refer to what has been said about the financing of existing railways hotels, creeping nationalisation and the dangers of hotels being built from Bankok to Amsterdam. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) mentioned the hotel at Turnberry, but there are many other examples. Gleneagles was built by the General Manager of the Caledonian Railway, Sir Donald Matheson, in 1923 or 1924 and it was not built to provide accommodation for those people who were descending at the non-existent station of Gleneagles. It was built specifically in order to increase rail traffic and to concentrate the traffic of golfers in a convenient and economic way to a particularly attractive part of the country. It was a considerable boost in the traffic of the Caledonian Railway and subsequently of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
The interesting thing is that this was all done by private railway companies in the interests of developing rail traffic in order to boost the railway industry and to serve rail travellers and to provide them with the kind of facilities they wanted. There was no question that the railways would thereby destroy the private hotel industry. It can therefore be seen at once that the whole objection to this proposal is ideological and that the anti-railway lobby is busy defending the interests of private hoteliers and trying to prevent the railways from doing what private railways were always allowed to do.
A great deal has been said about financing existing railway hotels. I do not have any figures and I am prepared to accept the assessments of other hon. Members, but they have been talking about existing hotels, the old, large establishments built on very generous lines which are very good and which, if modernised and improved, could probably rival some of the palatial hotels on the Continent and elsewhere, and be extremely attractive vis-á-vis the more modern hotels.
But that has nothing to do with the Amendment, which does not propose to close down or maintain or extend existing hotels. It deals with the power of the railway authorities to build hotels wherever they consider that to do so 650 would be in the interests of transport, and particularly rail transport, and the people who use it. Therefore, ipso facto, they would be new hotels.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
It says that the railway authorities should have powers to provide and manage hotels in Great Britain or elsewhere, but it makes no reference to that being in the interests of the railways. It is all to be left to good intentions.
§ Mr. Hynd
The Amendment provides that the railway authorities shall have power to establish and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain and I am only making the point that that cannot apply to existing hotels. The financing of new hotels or new facilities by the railways would have to have regard to the cost of establishing them and would have no relationship to the costing of existing railway hotels in London or York.
It is said that the paragraph does not refer to whether the hotels should be for the benefit of the people using the railways, but neither did the charters of the private railway companies. The private railway companies were obviously managed in the interests of the owners and directors, who directed themselves to that automatically and sensibly. If it is implied, or even directly suggested, that the Board of British Railways, a nationalised concern, will have no concern for the interests of the railways, that is a very serious criticism of the managers and members of the Railways Board. They are responsible eventually to the Minister. The Minister could displace the Chairman if he were not acting in accordance with the interests of the concern. The Railways Board, as any commercial concern, is responsible for and must be concerned about the efficiency and economic management of the railways. That is its job and that is its responsibility. If the members of the Board do not carry out that responsibility, they can be removed.
To suggest that the Railways Board, any more than the old Caledonian Railway or any other railway, might run riot and build hotels all over the face of the world because it was free to do so, and that the Railways Board would be no more concerned about creating a white elephant and throwing money about and building hotels and other 651 establishments which were not viable, can mean only that the Tory Party is expressing a complete lack of confidence in whoever may be appointed to manage the railway industry.
Boiled down, we return to the same old argument. It is all a matter of preventing a nationalised service from becoming viable. It is very useful party propaganda at election time and it is very useful for those who can be beaten in the competition for efficiency and service by the nationalised industries, and on those grounds I hope that the House will support the Amendment.
§ Mr. Bessell
In accordance with the custom of the House I have to declare an interest. I am a director of a company concerned with hotel development, but that company has laid dormant for the last four years while I have been in the House. It is right that I should, nevertheless, declare an interest.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) is wrong. There is no desire on my part—nor, I think, on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—to deny British Railways the opportunity to make additional profits. What I am concerned with—and here I speak from long experience of this business—is that British Railways will be able to enter the of the most risky aspects of property development in every part of the world.
If the hon. Gentleman needs convincing let me tell him what the British Travel Association will tell him, that there is a need for a further 500,000 hotel rooms in London alone. Why cannot they be built? The answer is that every private developer has discovered to his cost that the risk involved in hotel construction is so great that it is almost impossible to raise money for this purpose.
I could give several examples, but I shall mention only two—the Hilton International Hotel chain, and, coupled with that, Intercontinental Hotels, a subsidiary of Pan-American. Almost the only way in which these two groups are able to provide new hotels in places where there is an overpowering demand for hotel rooms is by persuading the Governments of the countries concerned to put up the money, very often on a nil return on 652 capital, not even interest-bearing capital. Examples of this are the Malta Hilton, the Berlin Hilton and the Pan-American Intercontinental Hotel at Vienna. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be doing the greatest possible disservice to British Railways if we give them the power to go into this kind of highly speculative and dangerous capital development.
§ Mr. John Hynd
If someone advances that argument, he is, in effect, saying that he has no confidence in the efficiency of those running a nationalised concern. The Railways Board is as well informed about the risks and the possibilities of profit-making in any of these adventures as is anyone else. People on the Board are not likely to run into deficit deliberately.
§ Mr. Bessell
I accept that the hon. Gentleman may be right, but what concerns me is that if the Clause goes through as it stands we shall be back to the 1962 position. I have looked at the matter carefully, and I have same reservations about the 1962 position. I should not be doctrinaire about whether the hotels should be adjacent to railway terminals. I do not think that that is important.
§ Mr. Bessell
The hon. Gentleman takes a different view from mine, and so does the hon. Member for Cathcart. I respect their views, but I do not agree with them. I do not think that that is the important issue.
What I am concerned with is that at the moment British Railways have a considerable capital asset. Unhappily, we do not know the true value of that asset. Let us consider four hotels in London—the Great Western Hotel, the Great Northern Hotel, the Great Eastern Hotel, and the Charing Cross Hotel. I do not think many land valuers would disagree with me when I say that the site value of those four hotels must be at least £10 million, which is said to be the total capital value of all hotels owned by British Railways.
The obvious way by which an extension of this hotel chain can take place under the terms of the Bill as it stands is for British Railways to borrow on the security of their existing hotels. They 653 cannot do that at the moment—and this is the wisdom of the 1962 Act—because they cannot form their hotel groups into a subsidiary. It has to be run as part of British Railways. If the change proposed in the Bill were made, and a subsidiary were created, there would be nothing to prevent that subsidiary from putting this real capital asset in hock. We do not know how much it is worth, but it could be used as a security to borrow a substantial sum of money, and British Railways would then be able to undertake hotel development.
I want to see more hotels being built. If British Railways went into this kind of enterprise, plenty of tenants could be found for the hotels. It would be possible to find great international operators who, on the right sort of rental basis, would be only too happy to operate them, but the risks inherent in this would be tremendous. All too often the builders of hotels in various parts of the world have found themselves in the situation of being able to lease these hotels only on a share of profit basis, which does not even service the capital, let alone repay ii, and they often have to reoccupy the hotel because it is not economically viable. We are not talking about the expertise of British Railways within the limited field of terminal hotels, but about people who have had experience of all aspects of the hotel business, and who have had to take that course. I therefore suggest that we would be doing a great disservice to British Railways if we put this kind of power in their hands.
I am not questioning that British Railways would seek the best advice, and would use every means at their disposal to ensure that the capital used was not put at risk, but this is something which nobody can forecast accurately. If there were a formula whereby it was possible to forecast the return on capital invested in a new hotel in any of the great urban centres in almost any part of the world there would not be this world-wide shortage of hotel rooms.
If I could be convinced that giving this power would provide a means of enabling British Railways to make additional profits, I should urge my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby and vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I speak from an experience of this business, over a long 654 time. I am certain that the risks involved are so great that we would only do British Railways a grave disservice by giving them this power, and I am therefore reluctantly compelled to ask my hon. Friends to vote against the removal of this important Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
It seems to me that the difference of opinion between the two sides of the House arises from our respective views about whether we should retain the provisions of sections 6 and 25(3) of the 1962 Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to maintain the position laid down by that Act rather than give the Railways Board power to extend its activities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) gave us a very interesting account of the state of the hotel business in so far as it affects British Railways. He told us that it was necessary to know the value of the hotels involved to enable us to assess whether these powers should be given to the Board. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman said that British Railways have been doing an excellent job. He put forward that view to support the plea that we should not limit the Board's powers by removing the freightliners service from the railways but now that we want to extend the Board's activities because we believe, as he believed yesterday, that the Board is doing an excellent job, he is complaining.
However, the contradiction is worse because the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) a few moments ago said that British Rail was doing a poor job. Hon. Members opposite put forward different reasons for supporting the Amendment. The comments of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) are far more pertinent. His experience of these affairs should not be discounted and his assessment of the shortage of hotel places, the reason for that shortage, and that inability of private enterprise to deal with it, because of capital risk, is a pertinent factor for consideration. The question arises whether British Rail should undertake what private enterprise has decided not to.
I agree with the hon. Member that the Minister should give us some assurances on the point. One of the inherent weaknesses of the English language is that it is not possible to write into a Bill all the "ifs" and "buts" and "whys" 655 and "wherefores". Intelligent men realise that there are certain things that cannot be written into a Bill with the precision required to meet all the shades of opinion that we express.
§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)
The hon. Member might find it useful to refer en passant to subsection (3) under which the Waterways Board is given powers to operate hotels but this power is restricted to points at which services may be required.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I accept what the hon. Member says. As I have said, hon. Members opposite want the provisions of the 1962 Act to remain in force. I agree that the provision in respect of the Waterways Board appears to create an anomaly, but it so happens that the complex of transport in respect of waterways is very different from the complex of the deployment of transport systems related to the general modernisation of British Railways. It is a different problem. Therefore, it is competent to take the view that a different answer might be required.
But having agreed that there may be a different answer I should like an assurance that the powers which the Bill seeks to give British Rail will not be such that it will be allowed to develop or to buy or manage hotels in areas on which private enterprise has turned its back, on the sort of criteria outlined by the hon. Member for Bodmin.
In view of the changed position of British Rail in transport, arising principally from its modernisation, although there is a case for increasing its powers and getting rid of all the limitations of the 1962 Act it would be wrong to seek to go beyond those limitations in such a way that British Rail entered fields which were not in keeping with the general wish of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has said that the Bill gives British Rail power to build hotels in Britain or in any part of the world. This is a sweeping statement. That is not what the House would want to see. We would all agree that it would be silly to build a hotel in Timbuctoo.
If we increase the powers of British Rail the Minister has a responsibility to 656 explain to the House how the new powers will be exercised. Although it may not be possible to write such matters into the Bill, I suggest that it is possible for the Minister to explain what they are tonight. He can explain the general criteria which will apply in the deployment of these new powers. I should not be happy if the exercise of the powers involved unfair competition. On the other hand—and here I address myself to hon. Members opposite—there are many occasions in commercial life where it is possible to argue that unfair competition is more predominant than fair competition. Hon. Members opposite seem to take the view that unfair competition is wrong if it is exercised by public enterprise or nationalised undertakings but not if it is exercised by private undertakings.
We should not try to inject an argument based too much on commercial morality. Is it right that a nationalised industry involved in transport should be freed from these very strict limitations in the 1962 Act? If it is agreed that perhaps, marginally, it is right that British Rail should be so freed, the Minister has a responsibility to explain to the House what kinds of tests would be applied if British Rail submitted to him a programme of hotel development under the new Act.
If that were done it would be possible to get rid of the extreme arguments on both sides—pro-nationalisation on the one hand and anti-nationalisation on the other—and to give proper attention to the effect of the Amendment.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson
In debating this Clause the other place got in rather a muddle, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am afraid that some hon. Members here have got into a muddle, and are a little confused as to what this is all about. The only thing that we are effectively discussing is the phrase "and elsewhere". Under existing law British Rail runs many hotels. It runs them very well. It is not confined to railway termini. It never has been. The North Bovey Manor Hotel, with which, as a railway solicitor, I had something to do when it was set up, was nowhere near a railway. The Gleneagles Hotel is not and others are not. There is nothing to prevent British Rail running hotels other than at the railway termini.
657 For some reason which has not been explained—it is certainly not because railway hotels must be at railway termini—the Bill has been drawn to give the Railways Board power to provide and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain and elsewhere. The other place struck out that Clause, so we are left with the existing law. The Government are asking for the Clause to be restored, but they have not explained why.
I should be very suspicious of the restoration of the Clause for a reason which has not been given. It is a bad thing for the Railways Board to have its attention diverted by activities which are not directly concerned with their principal business. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we were illogical on this side of the House because we had been urging the Railways Board to retain control of the liner trains. Of course we were. That is a matter connected with transport. But the management of hotels which are not in Great Britain is certainly not connected with British Railways and would be an activity which might divert the attention of the Board from its proper activities.
I am reinforced in my view by my memory of a conversation which I had with the late F. R. E. Davies, the great and last secretary of the Great Western Railway. The Great Western Railway had been pioneers of the omnibus company services. It ran buses in Penzance, in Cornwall, in 1903 long before such buses ran in London. It ran buses successfully and at a profit for years. I asked F. R. E. Davies why the G.W.R. sold its controlling interest in the bus companies to B.E.T., Tillings, and others. The answer was that it was thought that, although this was a profitable undertaking which was running well and was likely to expand, it was a bad thing for the G.W.R.'s interests to be diverted into a growing concern which was nothing to do with railways.
The same applies to the running of hotels in places other than in Great Britain. If the Government want a nationalised hotel undertaking let them say so and produce a Bill to that effect. But it does not seem to me a good thing to tack this on to British Railways which 658 have hitherto run hotels for people travelling by rail, even though some of those hotels are not at the railway termini.
§ Mr. Gower
The Minister took a good deal of pride in the modest profit earned by the hotels of British Railways. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) adduced a most formidable case against the Minister's argument. One has only to think of the hotels in London to realise that if their real capital were estimated properly that modest profit would be reduced two or three times. It would be only a marginal profit.
It is true that some of British Railways hotels are doing reasonably well, but I have spoken to many friends who stay in such hotels and they all say the same thing. They admit that they are a sort of captive audience. They say, "We go to the Great Western or the Great Northern because they are convenient when we arrive in London. When we arrive, we can deposit our luggage immediately and we do not have to spend so much money on taxis. We are ready to go to our destination within the London area".
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is misleading the House to say that that is the case. In my constituency, we have a hotel which is not connected with the railway in that sense but which provides amenities and facilities in such a way that its reputation in the North is second to none.
§ Mr. Gower
The fact that many of these hotels are at railway termini is a positive advantage which they have rightly exploited. Were they left to operate in competition with commercial hotels without that advantage, there is little doubt that they would not enjoy the business which they do.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that the building of these hotels is a highly speculative matter. I go further and say that the management of hotels is a highly sophisticated and specialised business today. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) to suggest that it is comparable with the building of a hotel by the Great Northern or some other railway 100 years ago. In those days, it was not the highly specialised business that it is today.
659 I warn the Minister that the British genius has expressed itself in many ways but not predominantly in managing hotels and restaurants. One has only to consider the large number of restaurants and hotels staffed and managed largely by French, Italian and Spanish people to realise that this is not our greatest professional trade. We must give full rein to these commercial qualities, and British Rail would be far wiser if it did not try to run these hotels but gave the work to specialists whose main business and concern is the running of hotels and restaurants and did not run hotels as a sideline to running railways.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
I own hotels and take an intimate interest in their day-to-day running. With that declaration of interest, I believe that what I shall say will be biased in favour of one of my businesses or something concerned with what we are talking about, namely, the management of hotels.
I ask the Treasury Bench to note what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said. He issued a warning which was well voiced. The compliment which should he paid to him is that the Ministers will heed it. Unfortunately, what he asked for, namely, a clear statement from the Government about what they intend and details of a blueprint on how they hope to proceed, cannot be done in such a way that it means anything.
Our job is to ensure that the words in the Bill are right. A declaration of intent from the Government means nothing. While it may satisfy the hon. Gentleman if the Ministers give him all sorts of explanations which please him, it will not mean anything to me, and it should not mean anything to him. Our job is to consider the consequences which might flow from the words which we put in the Bill.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for The Hartlepools was aware of 660 it, but his argument, in his responsible speech, was in support of the Bill as it was left by the other place. If the Bill were left as the members of the other place sent it to us, it would fit almost exactly the hon. Gentleman's argument. Therefore, he should come into the Lobby with us if the Amendment is taken to a Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) urges us to be as brief as possible because, as always, he wants to help the Government. That is the sort of man that he is. He does more for transport in this country than anybody else. I support almost everything that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said. The expertise which he brought to the debate was well based, and should be heeded. With one exception, about which I intervened in his speech, I agree with everything that he said.
I am speaking from the point of view of the provincial hotelier, not of the London hotelier. I am not interested in London. That is not England. England is outside London. The problems which the hotel business, in particular, has to face are especially urgent in the provinces. The Government have clobbered the hotel industry almost out of existence. We have had S.E.T. and the initial allowances have been removed, and, as a consequence of the clobbering, the morale is low. In addition to the economic arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bodmin, there is the fact that when one feels that all Government legislation is against one's own trade, it is demoralising.
Reinserting this subsection will add to that demoralisation. It can be interpreted by private enterprise owners of hotels only as meaning that Government money, collateral and backing will be given to organisations who will be offering unfair competition to them. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) suggested that private hoteliers objected to competition. Of course, they do not like it, but they know that they have to live with it.
It was also suggested that in commerce the competition was often unfair. That is true. Many unfair tactics are used by competitors. But there is always the satisfaction of knowing that, however 661 unfair we think those tactics are, the competitors are in the same position as ourselves in terms of Government support. But when we feel that we are being unfairly treated by an organisation which is being financed by taxes which we ourselves pay, it is particularly demoralising.
If we reach the point—and the subsection moves us towards it—in which the hotel business thinks that it will have to face Government backing, money and underwriting, and will have to face unfair competition strengthened by the taxes which it itself pays, surely it is entitled to complain. Unless the Government are doing this for the ideological reasons which I mentioned in the previous debate, they ought to drop this provision.
Everybody in the business applauds the railway hotels, particularly those adjacent to the railway termini. They offer a good facility. On commonsense grounds, if the railways already have a site on their own railway areas, it is good sense to use it for the purpose of building hotels, but if they are to use Government-sponsored money to buy other land, away from the railway termini, in order to compete with private enterprise organisations which have none of the railway's advantages, that is unfair, it is known to be unfair and it is demoralising.
It is too late to ask the Government to think again. Having succeeded in pushing through Clause 48, they have to take this step on Clause 50. Clause 48 gave them power to buy and do anything they liked. Under the terms of the Bill, hotels were exempted. They are removing exemptions which made the hotel situation rather different from that of other businesses. To ensure that they put into effect Clause Four of their constitution, we must have this provision.
But if they can have second thoughts, I ask them to have second thoughts about the hotel business. It is having a rough time and it is being dealt with unfairly by other Government Departments. To write this provision into the Bill will mean that our hotel problems will become even worse than they are at present. If we are to play our part in the tourist industry and in providing efficient hotels for travellers who do the buying and selling, we must encourage the hotel owners in this country instead of discouraging them. This is a discouragement, 662 and I ask the Government to desist from it.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Carmichael
The debate has been exhaustive, going into practically all the by-ways. We have heard from hon. Members with experience in the hotel business.
I promised to try to obtain figures in respect of male and female employment in railway hotels. Apparently it would take some time to get these figures and I cannot get them at the moment. If it is desired, I will do so later.
Hon. Members have raised the old problem of writing intentions into Acts of Parliament. An intention cannot he written into a Bill. All that we can say is that the Railways Board has no plans at the moment for hotels, beyond regularising the possibly doubtful statutory position of many of the hotels which, at one time, were at railheads or had access to railways and which no longer have such access because of the closing-down of parts of the railway system.
It appears to us that it is rather unlikely that the railways will decide to build hotels in Hong Kong and Tahiti, as was suggested in another place. We do not expect them to do that. On the other hand, they may well wish to build hotels in connection with their shipping services on certain parts of the coast or in connection with the Channel Tunnel. Or possibly B.O.A.C. may wish to use the railways' expertise in connection with hotels, asking the railways to build hotels in various parts of the world.
This is all speculative. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) rightly said, it boils down to a question of the trust which we have in the competence of the people who have run the railway hotels for a long time. I did not say that the railway hotels made a handsome profit. I said that they were making a modest profit. I admitted that the hotel business generally was going through a difficult period, and I added that the railways were holding their own in this difficult business.
One problem which was raised, and which would be substantial if the argument were correct, concerned the valuation of the hotels. We have no reason to believe that the valuation of £10 million is very far out. We do not believe 663 that it is seriously out. In any case, any large discrepancy will come to light under the terms of the Companies Act, 1967. The valuation of British Transport hotels is sometimes rather difficult because in many places the hotel is physicallly part of a station. But there are large numbers of railway hotels and not all of them are in wonderful sites. Some are in areas where the ground valuation is very low. Gleneagles and Turnberry have been mentioned, and others, too, have been mentioned. From the figures which we have been given we do not believe that £10 million is markedly out. This point will be brought home when we have to revalue in terms of the 1967 Act.
The subject has been well covered by hon. Members. It boils down to the fact that there is inconsistency in the argument of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) wanted the freightliner service to be expanded, but now—it suits his argument—he says, as part of his ideological argument, that he does not want railway hotels to be built, even though the railways have much expertise in this field and much experience. Some of their hotels are very old, but some were opened only this summer. The railways built a hotel in St. Andrews which they opened in May, and the general opinion of people in the hotel business was that it would be a good hotel which would pay. Some of the hotels are over 100 years old. We believe that they are bringing a good return on the investment put into them.
Furthermore, it is not as though we can suddenly move hotel managers and staff to some other function on the railways. If, as has been claimed, this is a highly specialised business—and I believe that running hotels is a specialised business—then if the railways ceased to run their hotels, the staff would simply run the hotels for some other body or find other jobs in the hotel business outside the railways. If the job is so expert—and I believe it is—then we cannot expect the staff suddenly to be switched to some other job in the railways. We believe that the experience which they have should be exploited to the maximum for the Railways Board and for the nation, and I 664 therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support me if hon Members opposite press this Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. Webster
The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to move on quickly and I appreciate that he did not have time to give all the information which he has, but we should like answers to some of our questions. To use an unhappy metaphor, somebody somewhere would like a letter from him.
We wanted freightliners to stay with British ailways, but we do not want the railways to expand into the hotel business elsewhere because we think that they should be busy running railways. That is the point of the exercise. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they were highly profitable hotels. Let us look at the balance sheet. Last year the figures were: properties £7.8 million, equipment £3.6 million. This year they are; properties £8.4 million, equipment £4 million. That is £11.4 million and £12.4 million respectively. The profit was £0.7 million and £0.8 million respectively. This is a return on historical capital of 6 per cent. and 7 per cent.
I have argued on this subject for a long time. In the debates on the 1962 Act, I recall, I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) whether he could give a valuation of these hotels for the same purpose, and he could not. I hazarded a guess that it must be about £35 million. If that is so, then the profitability is less than 2 per cent., which is very much less than the rate on the money which would be borrowed by a hotelier to run his hotel, which today would be at least 8 per cent.
§ Mr. Bessell
Supporting evidence for the hon. Member's argument is the valuation of the equipment in relation to the capital value of the property. He has only to see the obvious discrepancies there and the illogicality of that valuation to see that his figures are right.
§ Mr. Webster
I am grateful for the hon. Member's support, because he is much more expert in this matter than I am. The rate which I have given is about a quarter of the borrowing rate. It represents therefore, a substantial loss. In effect, all these hotels are being subsidised at the taxpayers' expense. It may 665 be all right to do that in conjunction with a railway and close to a railway station in order to encourage railway travel, but is it a method of running a hotel in Gleneagles or Moreton in the Marsh so that American tycoons can play golf at the expense of British taxpayers? We should limit these activities. I am not saying that we should get rid of Gleneagles, although at another time we might do so.
We should limit the railways to hotels close to railway facilities, as the Lords
§ suggested. We want them to concentrate on their proper business. We have had amiable assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, but the best assurance of all is the Lords' Amendment, which I ask my hon. Friends to support in the Division Lobby.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 199.669
|Division No. 298.]||AYES||[7.24 p.m.|
|Alldritt, Walter||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)|
|Anderson, Donald||Eadie, Alex||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)|
|Archer, Peter||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Lawson, George|
|Ashley, Jack||Ellis, John||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||English, Michael||Ledger, Ron|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Ensor, David||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)|
|Barnes, Michael||Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Bornett, Joel||Fernyhough, E.||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Baxter, William||Finch, Harold||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Beamy, Alan||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Bence, Cyril||Foley, Maurice||Loughlin, Charles|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Ford, Ben||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Blackburn, F.||Forrester, John||McBride, Neil|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Fraser, John (Norwood)||McCann, John|
|Booth, Albert||Freeson, Reginald||MacColl, James|
|Boston, Terence||Galpern, Sir Myer||MacDermot, Niall|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Gardner, Tony||Macdonald, A. H.|
|Boyden, James||Garrett, W. E.||McGuire, Michael|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||McKay, Mrs. Margaret|
|Bradley, Tom||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Mackie, John|
|Brooks, Edwin||Gregory, Arnold||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Grey, Charles (Durham)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||MacPherson, Malcolm|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.||Mahon, peter (Preston, S.)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Buchan, Norman||Harper, Joseph||Manuel, Archie|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mapp, Charles|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hazell, Bert||Marks, Kenneth|
|Cant, R. B.||Heffer, Eric S.||Marquand, David|
|Carmichael, Neil||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Mayhew, Christopher|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hilton, W. S.||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Coe, Denis||Hobden, Dennis||Millan, Bruce|
|Coleman, Donald||Hooley, Frank||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Moonman, Eric|
|Conlan, Bernard||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Howie, W.||Moyle, Roland|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hoy, James||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Cronin, John||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Neal, Harold|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)||Newens, Stan|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Oakes, Gordon|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Ogden, Eric|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Hunter, Adam||O'Malley, Brian|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hynd, John||Oram, Albert E.|
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Orme, Stanley|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Janner, Sir Barnett||Oswald, Thomas|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Jeger, George (Goole)||Padley, Walter|
|Delargy, Hugh||Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)||Paget, R. T.|
|Dell, Edmund||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Dempsey, James||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Dewar, Donald||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Park, Trevor|
|Dickens, James||Judd, Frank||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Dobson, Ray||Kelley, Richard||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)|
|Doig, Peter||Kenyon, Clifford||Pavitt Laurence|
|Dunn, James A.||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Pentland, Norman||Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)||Weitzman, David|
|Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Silverman, Julius||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Skeffington, Arthur||Whitaker, Ben|
|Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Slater, Joseph||Whitlock, William|
|Price, William (Rugby)||Small, William||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Probert, Arthur||Spriggs, Leslie||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederic|
|Rankin, John||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Rees, Merlyn||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)||Swain, Thomas||Willis, Rt. Hn. George|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)||Swingler, Stephen||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)||Symonds, J. B.||Winnick, David|
|Roebuck, Roy||Taverne, Dick||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Thornton, Ernest||Woof, Robert|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Tinn, James||Yates, Victor|
|Rowlands, E.||Tomney, Frank|
|Ryan, John||Urwin, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Mr. Harry Gourlay and|
|Sheldon, Robert||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Mr. Ernest Armstrong.|
|Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.||Wallace, George|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Fortescue, Tim||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Foster, Sir John||McMaster, Stanley|
|Astor, John||Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||Maddan, Martin|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Maginnis, John E.|
|Awdry, Daniel||Gibson-Watt, David||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Marten, Neil|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Balniel, Lord||Glyn, Sir Richard||Mawby, Ray|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Batsford, Brian||Goodhart, Philip||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Goodhew, Victor||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Bull, Ronald||Gower, Raymond||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)||Grant, Anthony||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Grant-Ferris, R.||Monro, Hector|
|Bessell, Peter||Grieve, Percy||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Biffen, John||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||More, Jasper|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Gurden, Harold||Morgan, Geraint (Denb'gh)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Blaker, Peter||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Murton, Oscar|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Neave, Airey|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Brains, Bernard||Hastings, Stephen||Nott, John|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Hawkins, Paul||Onslow, Cranley|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Hay, John||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Bryan, Paul||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Heseltine, Michael||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Higgins, Terence L.||Percival, Ian|
|Burden, F. A.||Hill, J. E. B.||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)||Holland, Philip||Pounder, Rafton|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hordern, Peter||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hornby, Richard||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Howell, David (Guildford)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hunt, John||Pym, Francis|
|Clark, Henry||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Clegg, Walter||Iremonger, T. L.||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Cooke, Robert||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Cordle, John||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Corfield, F. V.||Jopling, Michael||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Costain, A. P.||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Kershaw, Anthony||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Crouch, David||Kimball, Marcus||Robson Brown, Sir William|
|Crowder, F. P.||Kitson, Timothy||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lambton, Viscount||Scott, Nicholas|
|Dance, James||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Sharpies, Richard|
|Dean, Paul||Lane, David||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Silvester, Frederick|
|Doughty, Charles||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Eden, Sir John||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Smith, John (London & W'minster)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Speed, Keith|
|Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Stainton, Keith|
|Errington Sir Eric||Loveys, W. H.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lubbock, Eric||Tapsell, Peter|
|Farr, John||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Carthcart)|
|Fisher, Nigel||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Teeling, Sir William||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Temple, John M.||Wall, Patrick||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret||Walters, Dennis||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy||Ward, Dame Irene||Wright, Esmond|
|Tilney, John||Webster, David||Wylie, N. R.|
|Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Williams, Donald (Dudley)||Mr. Anthony Royle and|
|Waddington, David||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)||Mr. Bernard Weatherill.|
|Walker, Peter (Worcester)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.