§
Lords Amendment No. 101: In page 121, line 9, at end insert:
but construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.
§ Read a Second time.
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment would exclude construction sites from the definition of "operating centre" and thus make it extremely difficult in practice to apply quality licensing to vehicles in the construction industry. Hon. Members will know that there have been many discussions on the subject, and that we have had a series of meetings with representatives of the industry on the particular problems that will confront them in relation to the licensing system.
We understand the special position of those in the industry in that they are continually moving vehicles about the country and setting up new operating centres from site to site. We do not wish to burden the industry with unnecessary controls. That is why Clause 61(2)(b) provides that vehicles can operate from a 896 site for up to three months without the site becoming an operating centre or a transport manager being required to operate it.
Even more important, perhaps, from the point of view of the industry, is Clause 65(3), which provides that while the licensing authorities will start from the assumption of one transport manager per operating centre, they will have complete discretion to allow one manager to supervise several centres if the operator can show that this would not be an unsafe arrangement.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), will recall that we discussed this point in Committee, and emphasised that the discretion exists. Clearly, cases in which people were confronted with the sort of problems there are in the industry, would be appropriate cases for the employment for that kind of discretion. Nevertheless, as we see it, it would not be right to exclude these sites from the definition of "operating centre", as to do so might make the quality licensing scheme ineffectual from that point of view.
Therefore, bearing in mind this important element of flexibility in the discretion of the licensing authorities, and the fact that there is this period of up to three months in which a site is not required to become an operating centre, which one hopes would provide the necessary flexibility for the construction industry, I hope that the House will disagree with this Amendment.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. J. H. OsbornI am very disappointed that the Government have decided, following discussions with the construction industry, to disagree with this Lords Amendment. This will place an intolerable burden on the industry. I accept that there has been discussion with the industry, but I remind the Minister of State that in Committee there was considerable discussion on Clause 58 of the original Bill and considerable debate about operators and operators' licences.
Reference has been made to the extension of grace for three months. This is welcome as a move in the right direction, but subsequently, on Report, the Government moved a further Amendment which deleted the word "permanent". 897 This was debated in another place when arguments were put forward by Lord Nugent. The arguments, which had been obvious to us on this side of the House, were reiterated in another place.
As the Minister of State has admitted, the construction industry is continually opening temporary depots in different parts of the country. The Government have recognised the need to allow this situation by allowing the flexibility of three months. After that stage a construction centre or activity of construction becomes an operating centre in the sense of the meaning of this Clause. There was an Amendment in another place asking that this should be extended to 12 months, but it was turned down on Report. The industry had made strong representations that if the three months concession is rigidly adhered to it will seriously handicap the industry because in many cases three months is not enough time.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot argue about the time on this Amendment. The Amendment is quite specific.
§ Mr. OsbornI shall not again go over the argument about three or 12 months. I recognise that we are discussing the terms
construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.This gives the licensing authority some discretion. If there cannot be a time limit the purpose of the Amendment is to give discretion to the licensing authority. A site could then qualify as an operating centre when a major construction, such as the building of a bridge, is taking place—an operation which may last 12 months or two or three years. It would then become an operating centre.The industry does not disagree with that, but a large number of building operations should be completed within 12 months. I have had some experience of major construction and I have found that it very seldom can be completed in three months. Construction companies have their regional depots where they have maintenance facilities. Surely if the Government are not to make other concessions they can at least give 898 the licensing authority some discretion. Otherwise, additional costs will be imposed on the industry at a time when the industry can least afford those costs.
I hope that it is not too late for the Government to reconsider this decision and to allow this Amendment to be passed.
§ Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)In accordance with the tradition of the House I declare an interest in the construction industry. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has said.
This Amendment is reasonable and would not take powers away from the Minister by enabling him to allow discretion for local people. I am extremely worried by the fact that if the Amendment is not accepted it will entail an incredible amount of paper work for the industry. The Government become so concerned about theory that they forget practical application. National contractors run very efficient organisations for looking after their transport bases regionally. Except on small sites they do not expect a transport officer to be responsible. It is better to have a more experienced man at headquarters or branch headquarters than on the sites. On the larger sites it is customary to have experienced maintenance people and an experienced transport organisation with a large fleet.
I plead with the Minister to consider the practical application of this provision. Three months does not mean a thing. Probably when the Minister suggested it he was thinking that the lorries would be working for only there months. Very often transport is engaged in the early part of the operation in carting away rubbish. Then, for several months, that transport is not used because goods are delivered by other transport. Finally, the firm's transport comes in to move goods from the site. Only last Friday I had the privilege of being with the Minister on a site. There he saw a very efficient organisation at work. My car had broken down and the organisation put it right.
There is an experienced organisation on the larger sites, but on the smaller ones, which probably have only one lorry of this sort, it would be a farce to make the general foreman a transport officer and to take the responsibility from the area 899 manager. That would be ducking responsibility and making an excuse for the man who should be in charge to pass responsibility down the line.
This reasonable Amendment would not take any powers away from the Minister, but it would give discretion to local people to deal with matters in a sensible way. I cannot see why the Government should want to go back to the old idea of "The man in Whitehall knows best". Surely the Minister, even in the closing days of his Ministry, would not want to burden the industry with an intolerable amount of paper work which could never be checked. I am sure that if this Amendment is not accepted an enormous amount of paper work will be involved. Those who want to work according to the rules will do so. Those who want to cheat will find no difficulty in doing so. The Ministry, even with computers, will not be able to keep track of every lorry.
A reasonable concession such as that proposed in the Lords Amendment would make for safety and for efficient organisation. If the Amendment is rejected, nothing will be done to promote greater safety; it will merely mean more red tape and paper work. The 143 tons of waste paper which, we hear today, go from this House will be matched by the amount of waste paper going from builders' offices.
§ Mr. BessellI hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not rule me out of order if I congratulate the Minister of State upon his new appointment and wish him well. He has served heroically throughout all the stages of the Bill. We wish him every good fortune and happiness in his new post. It is worth noting, in passing, that not one Transport Minister, junior or senior, has survived the Bill since it came up for Second Reading.
The Amendment has troubled me greatly all the way through. I became aware of it when it was considered in another place. The difficulty I have always had with it is that as worded it would place a heavy burden upon the licensing authority. It says:
construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.900 This means that every licensing authority would have to check up on every building site to determine whether it was right to treat it as an operating centre. I think that their Lordships were ill-advised in the wording of the Amendment.
§ Mr. J. H. OsbornI do not think that would be necessary. A company which is operating a site which will not last for long can apply for exemption. A positive searching activity by the licensing authority is not required. A company can say, "We have a site here. We shall be here for only a short time." As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot have a second speech disguised as an intervention.
§ Mr. OsbornI am sorry.
§ Mr. BessellI appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. That point could be overcome by providing that it be a matter of application on the part of builders. However, the Amendment says:
unless a licensing authority considers it expedient ".That places the onus upon the licensing authority to check up and assess whether a building site should be exempt. The effect would be that licensing authorities, which are very busy, would ignore construction sites.Although I recognise the difficulty that the wording would create, I agree with the purpose behind the Amendment. To treat a construction site as an operating centre will make nonsense of the intention of the Bill. It would be open to abuse. There would be nothing to prevent builders and contractors from moving their vehicles from site to site, thereby failing to have a true operating centre, although I do not think this would be likely to happen. I cannot believe that any responsible firm of contractors would adopt such a practice, which in the end would be more costly and probably far more complicated to operate than complying with the licensing requirements of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
I have in the past maintained that it would be right to exempt construction sites. If the Lords Amendments had been so worded, it would have been far 901 more valuable. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) speaks from an intimate knowledge of the industry; he knows the complications and the difficulties involved and the vehicles that can be used. I can visualise that with a major construction—say, a development involving a large number of properties—vehicles would be used during the demolition period. Then there would be a long period when deep piles would be driven and when few vehicles would be used other than those delivering materials for use by the construction engineers; and in the later stages of the construction vehicles would be needed again.
One dangerous effect of the Bill as it stands is that operators of vehicles in the construction industry will decide that their operating centre will be Ludgate, if there happens to be a construction going on there, and then perhaps six months later they will have to decide that their operating centre is to be somewhere in Highgate, because they happen to be doing some construction there.
Yet the wording of the Amendment is difficult. I believe that the case which has been advanced by the Ministry is not met by the concession announced today by the Minister of State, although I admit that it is undoubtedly a valuable concession and one which will be welcome. However, the concession does not go to the heart of the problem and does not overcome the objections we raised earlier and the sensible and serious representations which have been made to hon. Members on both sides by those who are thoroughly familiar with this aspect of road transport and who feel that this provision will place a great burden on them. Indeed, it will place a burden upon the licensing authority, which is bound to have its work considerably increased as a result of the provisions of the Clause.
Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. Although I recognise the difficulties involved in putting into practice the precise wording of the Amendment, on balance I believe that it would be far better to have the Amendment than to allow the Bill to go through in its present form.
§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)I, too, want to congratulate the Minister of State on his translation to his new post in the Department of Health and Social Security. We all wish him well there. He may well think that he will now pass from a year of being bombarded by me on transport matters in Standing Committee and elsewhere. He may be sorry to learn that I shall be bombarding him in his new capacity on the disabled and various other such subjects.
The hon. Gentleman has borne the heat and burden of the day on the Bill. We have disagreed with the Government on major points about the Bill. It has been the hon. Gentleman's duty to try in many cases to defend an indefensible case. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having survived this tremendous ordeal.
In the Amendment the other place has taken account of the problems confronting a vital industry in our economy, the construction industry. It is our concern on this side that we should in no way impede or make more difficult the movements of construction firms when, as a result of contracts taken up, they have to move about the country from one site to another. The Minister reminded us that in Committee the Government made clear that a construction site would not be regarded as an operating centre under the terms of the Bill until three months had passed and that only after that period would licensing requirements in a new licensing authority's area come into force.
We welcomed that concession when it was given, but at a later stage the Government changed by Amendment the definition of operating centre, detracting from the contribution which they had made to the administrative convenience of the construction industry, with the result that the industry now finds that it will not enjoy the benefits which it thought the earlier concession gave.
We are glad to note that the Minister, and his colleagues, no doubt, had discussions with representatives of the construction industry during the summer and he now recognises that problems exist. Nevertheless, it is clear from all we have heard from representatives of the industry that they are still entirely dissatisfied with the terms of the Bill, because their 903 companies have to work in special conditions which are not properly taken into account.
At various stages of the Bill, we on this side—contrary to what some hon. Members opposite have thought in constantly suggesting that we represent only the road haulage industry—have represented the special problems of different industries, but in the present context of operating centres we are pressing the case of the construction industry, which is the one which finds itself in most difficulty.
Briefly, the reasons are these. The procedure now prescribed in the Bill ignores the methods used by the building industry when it has to move to sites in different parts of the country. At some sites a firm will be there for less than three months; it will carry out the job and then move away. In such circumstances, it will not come within the terms of the definition. At other sites, on the other hand, it will be there for more than three months, though, perhaps, for only a few more months, six months or less than a year.
§ Mr. BessellOr for a few days, perhaps.
§ Mr. CampbellOr just for a few more days. This means that the concession in relation to three months which we welcomed in Committee is worthless if a job is to take any time at all in a new licensing authority area.
Moreover, the Bill will impose unnecessary and expensive paper work on the industry.
Mr. Geoffrey WilsonHas my hon. Friend any idea of the proportion of building sites which will be affected in the manner he suggests?
§ Mr. CampbellI understand from representations made to us from the bodies representing the building industry—as the Minister knows, there are two which represent pretty well all the firms working in the industry—this is something which happens all the time. Firms win contracts and have to move, perhaps, 100 miles or 300 miles into a new area, setting up there a base for their work which includes, naturally, the stationing of vehicles while the work is proceeding. 904 This happens all the time. It is difficult to quantify because it depends on the size of the task, and I have no figures related, say, to the period of a year.
Mr. Geoffrey WilsonWhat I should like to know is whether a large proportion of building sites are occupied for a period which would bring them within the terms of the Clause.
§ Mr. CampbellI cannot myself give that information. The Government, no doubt, have considered the matter and have in discussion with representatives of the industry; perhaps they can provide that interesting information. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), with his knowledge of these matters, may be able to tell us now.
§ Mr. CostainThe building of a single house is bound to take more than three months, although it will probably employ an average of only 10 men. To have all the paraphernalia of a transport officer for such a purpose is stupid.
§ Mr. CampbellWhat my hon. Friend has said shows how difficult it is for me, as a private Member, to supply the full information. Even the building of a single house, if it be in an isolated area, will take more than three months, and, if vehicles have to be stationed in the area this will create a situation in which there might have to be an operating centre for the vehicles and licensing for them as well.
I come now to the point in the Lords Amendment regarding the giving of discretion to the licensing authority. The other place makes clear that the licensing authority will have discretion to decide whether licensing is necessary after a period of three months. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) pointed out that the Amendment does not make clear what the application procedure would be and whether an application would have to be put in. For the first three months, no licensing is necessary in any case. I cannot imagine that a situation would result in which the licensing authority had to comb its area to ascertain whether there were any construction sites with vehicles based on them which had been there for more than three months. I am sure that it would be quite simple administratively to make an arrangement 905 to meet the point which the other place propose by the Amendment.
The far simpler course would be to remove construction sites altogether from the ambit of the definition of operating centre. However, as the Government were not prepared to do that, the Lords Amendment should meet the point by giving the licensing authority a discretion, and I cannot accept that administrative convenience would raise any objection to it.
I imagine that this is the last day on which the Minister of State will be dealing with transport questions. Although he moved to his new post at the end of last week, we are very glad that he is here today dealing with the Bill. His presence illustrates what I said at the beginning of my speech: he has become indispensable to the Government in dealing with the Transport Bill. I congratulate him on that, but I commiserate with him also because he has had to try to defend so many points in the Bill—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think it expedient that we come to the Amendment, which deals with the question of expediency.
§ Mr. CampbellYes, Mr. Speaker.
I hope, therefore, that, on his last day in dealing with transport matters, the Minister of State will make a major contribution to our country's economy by changing his mind and persuading his right hon. Friend to accept the excellent proposal made in the Lords Amendment.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. SwinglerNaturally, I am grateful for the kind remarks which have been made, or which, I am sure, were intended to be kind. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) certainly gave me a hint about what to say to my children when they ask, as they frequently do, "What did you do, Daddy, on the great Transport Bill of 1968?". I can say that I survived—just, because I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not take up my new duties until 1st November.
Hon. Members have made rather heavy weather of the Amendment. We are talking about the definition of an operating centre in relation to the whole quality licensing system. The Bill states: 906
'operating centre' means, in relation to any vehicles, the base or centre from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used".As I was saying on the last occasion, I think that all hon. Members are generally in favour of the quality licensing system and want it to be universally applicable. If it is projected to raise the standard of vehicle maintenance and safety, it must be made universally applicable. There must, therefore, be a framework for that purpose.For that purpose, we have selected the unit of the operating centre as the basis on which the applicant gets the licence, as the basis for the licensing authority's scrutiny and as the basis for the appointment of the transport manager. We are talking about what should be the proper definition of the operating centre, the important unit on the basis of which the applicant, a man operating road transport, applies to the licensing authority. It is the base or centre
from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used".It must be admitted that that is the right basis. If one agrees with the concept of the operating centre, that is the proper interpretation of it. It will be for the licensing authorities to consider that interpretation and its application to any case in the light of the question: Is this or is it not, the operating centre in the sense that it is the place from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used?In relation to that, I have mentioned the two important concessions—they are not new; they have evolved during the course of our discussions—which, I think, meet the objections of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I refer, first, to the discretion of the licensing authority concerning the appointment of the transport manager. I realise that the construction industry might be worried about this in regard to the possible multiplication of operating centres. That is precisely the sort of case which one had in mind in saying that the licensing authority should have discretion concerning the man at some central point who may be perfectly good at supervising a number of centres.
Therefore, by Clause 65(3), the licensing authority can, in his discretion, determine that an applicant need not 907 appoint one transport manager for each operating centre. He may be allowed to have a transport manager who supervises a number of operating centres. That may prove to be an important point for the construction industry.
The other point which I have mentioned earlier is the discretion about the three months. If there are considerable movement and changes which imply as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) will appreciate, that the bases are not those from which the vehicles are normally used, the interpretation in the Bill would not apply because one could not say that the place in question was the base or centre
from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used ".In any event, there is the three-month discretion whereby vehicles may be operating from a site and a licence is not required.
§ Mr. J. H. OsbornThe situation is by no means clear to us in the House or to the construction industry. It is difficult for me to appreciate it at this particular time. If a construction company operated a site 300 miles away and it said to the licensing authority at its base, "We normally use our vehicles from this base", could the licensing authority waive what appears to be the very rigid definition in the Bill? If that is what the Minister is saying, it would go a long way to clarify the position. But how is this clarification to be given to the construction industry after we have finished with the problem in the House today?
§ Mr. SwinglerWe shall, of course, have to continue, as necessary, discussions with the construction industry on this point. I want to make clear, however, to the hon. Member and to the construction industry that it is all wrapped up in the answer to the question: Is this the base or centre from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used? That should be the test. That is our definition of the operating centre.
We do not wish to include the exemption. That is why I have moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment. Quite clearly, the licensing authority will have to judge on that basis using what- 908 ever discretionary powers have been granted to him by Parliament in the course of the Bill. That is the crucial point.
§ Mr. CostainWill the Minister go a little further? The problem for the construction industry is the use of the words "normally used". "Normally maintained" would be understandable. Does not the Minister appreciate that when individual houses are being built, the vehicles would be normally used at the site but not normally maintained there. If the words "normally maintained" were used, they would make a great difference.
§ Mr. SwinglerThe hon. Member will appreciate that our precise concern is the responsibility for vehicle efficiency and safety and the proper supervision of vehicles. Therefore, if vehicles are sent away for any considerable time from the place where they are normally stationed or sited and they do not constantly return to that base, it is no good arguing that they are being properly supervised and serviced at that base. That is why the licensing authority will, therefore, have to consider the proper application of the definition. It depends, of course, on the period for which vehicles may be away from the place which might be their normal place.
The whole aim of the quality licensing system is to ensure constant and proper supervision of vehicle efficiency and safety and that somebody is responsible for the maintenance and servicing of those vehicles. That is solely what we are concerned with. That is why I hope that hon. Members will accept our definition and leave it to the discretion of licensing authorities to apply it in the proper way.
§ Mr. BessellI realise that the Minister is trying to help us. If, however, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said, a number of houses were being built in different parts of the country, and if, for that reason, a vehicle was away from its normal base, which would presumably be a builder's yard, for a lengthy period, would not the transport manager, whoever he might be or wherever he might be based, have the same degree of responsibility to make sure under the terms of the Bill that the vehicle was properly maintained?
§ Mr. SwinglerThat is exactly why we give this discretion to the licensing authorities. I said earlier concerning the discretionary power for licensing authorities under Clause 65(3) that if those authorities are satisfied about the safety and efficient management, they can use their discretion and say that the transport manager 100 or 200 miles away can do the job. That is a matter for the licensing authorities to judge.
Likewise, it would be a matter for the licensing authorities, in a practical, commonsense way, to judge whether the base was or was not the base from which the vehicles normally operated. They must, of course, take into account the fluctuations in the construction industry, as well as in other industries, in arriving at a sensible answer to that question. That is why we wish this definition to stand, because it is a practical, commonsense definition. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Geoffrey WilsonI know little about the construction industry, but the more I have listened to the debate the more confused I have become. It seems to me, as a lawyer, that the difficulty will arise over the word "normally". What is "normal"? If it is normal to use a vehicle from a particular place for a very short period, is it normal to use it somewhere else for the next period—three months, three weeks or three days?
I can foresee a great deal of dispute about the Clause, and I do not know that we have had a satisfactory explanation.
§ Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)I would add my congratulations to the Minister of State on his removal from the Ministry of Transport, and also point out that since the Bill began—it seems a very long time ago—we have seen all three Ministers disposed of and three new ones come in. I hope it is three and not four. However, we congratulate the Minister of State and wish him success. [Interruption.] I never can hear the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) when he speaks while sitting down. I thank the Minister for the three months' leeway that we wrung out of him during the Committee stage of the Bill. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Ham, North would stop 910 talking, he might give himself a chance to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who has a great deal of practical experience in this subject, has said that this is not enough. I agree with him. I am sure that he could well have given illustrations of how much costs in the hon. Gentleman's new Ministry will increase as a result of his rather rigid view on the Amendment. The Minister has said that we are making heavy weather of this and he also asked whether we were in favour of quality control. We are definitely in favour of quality control and anything of this nature to ensure safety of operation of commercial vehicles, and so is the industry.
Both the Minister and I have had consultations with the industry, and I am sure that our experience has been common, that the industry agrees with the need for this but asks on every occasion to be given as much practical help as possible in its operation. This is why we are pressing the Lords Amendment. We think that it will not in any way detract from the safety and quality control that is necessary, but will make operations more practical and more flexible.
When a great Department of State gets the bit between its teeth, the great danger is that it will start drafting regulations and everything will become too rigid, and the unfortunate man on the site who has the least chance of anybody to make representations on the subject, is completely left out in the cold. I should have thought that the House would have been wise to heed the practical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who, with a lifetime of experience in the industry, knows the problem. I should also have thought that our way of giving discretion to the licensing authority was the better method.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the first three months of an operation is generally the time when spoil is being removed and there are a lot of vehicles on the site. Then comes the period when the actual construction work is being done, and after that extra bits and pieces are brought into the finished building and then again one needs many more vehicles.
911 4.45 p.m.
I should have thought it clear that the Lords Amendment is more flexible, takes nothing away from the safety that is required and also takes away any taint that this is simply a matter of considering the convenience of administrators. We sometimes have to consider the convenience of those who build houses. We should on every occasion prevent any risk of bureaucratic nonsense, but I think there will be plenty of bureaucratic non-
§ sense under the Bill as it stands in this part if we do not accept the Lords Amendment. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to insist in the Division Lobby that the Lords Amendment remains in the Bill.
§ Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 203.
915| Division No. 302.] | AYES | [4.44 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Dunn, James A. | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Albu, Austen | Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salord, E.) | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) |
| Alldritt, Walter | Eadie, Alex | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Allen, Scholefield | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) |
| Anderson, Donald | Ellis, John | Kelley, Richard |
| Archer, Peter | English, Michael | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Ennals, David | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) |
| Ashley, Jack | Ensor, David | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Lawson, George |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Fredrick (Nwton) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Fernyhough, E. | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Barnes, Michael | Finch, Harold | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) |
| Barnett, Joel | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) |
| Bence, Cyril | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Ford, Ben | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Blackburn, F. | Forrester, John | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Fowler, Gerry | McBride, Neil |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | MacDermot, Niall |
| Booth, Albert | Freeson, Reginald | Macdonald, A. H. |
| Boston, Terence | Gardner, Tony | McKay, Mrs. Margaret |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Garrett, W. E. | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) |
| Boyden, James | Ginsburg, David | Mackie, John |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Gourlay, Harry | Maclennan, Robert |
| Bradley, Tom | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Gregory, Arnold | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Brooks, Edwin | Grey, Charles (Durham) | MacPherson, Malcolm |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Manuel, Archie |
| Buchan, Norman | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mapp, Charles |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Hamling, William | Marks, Kenneth |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Harper, Joseph | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Cant, R. B. | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Mayhew, Christopher |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Haseldine, Norman | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Hattersley, Roy | Millan, Bruce |
| Chapman, Donald | Hazell, Bert | Miller, Dr. M. S. |
| Coleman, Donald | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Milne, Edward (Blyth) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Heffer, Eric S. | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Hilton, W. S. | Molloy, William |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Cronin, John | Hooley, Frank | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Horner, John | Moyle, Roland |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Newens, Stan |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Howie, W. | Norwood, Christopher |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Ogden, Eric |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Hunter, Adam | Orbach, Maurice |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Hynd, John | Orme, Stanley |
| Delargy, Hugh | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Oswald, Thomas |
| Dell, Edmund | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
| Dempsey, James | Janner, Sir Barnett | Padley, Walter |
| Dewar, Donald | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Jeger, George (Goole) | Paget, R. T. |
| Dickens, James | Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras.S.) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Doig, Peter | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Park, Trevor | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Wallace, George |
| Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Sheldon, Robert | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Pavitt, Laurence | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) | Weitzman, David |
| Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Pentland, Norman | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) | Silverman, Julius | Whitlock, William |
| Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Skeffington, Arthur | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) | Slater, Joseph | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Small, William | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Snow, Julian | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Probert, Arthur | Spriggs, Leslie | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Rankin, John | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Rees, Merlyn | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy | Swain, Thomas | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Swingler, Stephen | Winnick, David |
| Robertson, John (Pasley) | Symonds, J. B. | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as) | Taverne, Dick | Woof, Robert |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Roebuck, Roy | Thornton, Ernest | Yates, Victor |
| Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Tinn, James | |
| Rose, Paul | Urwin, T. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | Mr. John McCann and |
| Ryan, John | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | Mr. J. D. Concannon. |
| NOES | ||
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fisher, Nigel | Loveys, W. H. |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Lubbock, Eric |
| Astor, John | Fortescue, Tim | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Foster, Sir John | MacArthur, Ian |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Balniel, Lord | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Gibson-Watt, David… | McMaster, Stanley |
| Batsord, Brian | Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan | Maddan, Martin |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tuton | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Maginnis, John E. |
| Bell, Ronald | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Glyn, Sir Richard | Marten, Neil |
| Bessell, Peter | Goodhart, Phillip | Maude, Angus |
| Biffen, John | Goodhew, Victor | Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Gower, Raymond | Mawby, Ray |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Grant, Anthony | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Blaker, Peter | Grant-Ferris, R. | Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Braine, Bernard | Gurden, Harold | Monro, Hector |
| Brewis, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hal-Davis, A. G. F. | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) | Mott-Radc'yffe, Sir Charles |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Bryan, Paul | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Murton, Oscar |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Buck, Anthony (Colchester) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Neave, Airey |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Burden, F. A. | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Nott, John |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, West) | Hastings, Stephen | Onslow, Cranley |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Hawkins, Paul | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Carlise, Mark | Hay, John | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Heseltine, Michael | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Clark, Henry | Higgins, Terence L. | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Clegg, Walter | Hill, J. E. B. | Percival, Ian |
| Cooke, Robert | Hirst, Geoffrey | Peyton, John |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Holland, Philip | Pounder, Rafton |
| Cordle, John | Hordern, Peter | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Costain, A. P. | Hornby, Richard | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hunt, John | Prior, J M. L. |
| Crouch, David | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pym, Francis |
| Crowder, F. P. | Iremonger, T. L. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Dance, James | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Jopling, Michael | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Doughty, Charles | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee | Kitson, Timothy | Sharples, Richard |
| Drayson, G. B. | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Lambton, Viscount | Silvester, Frederick |
| Eden, Sir John | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton) | Lane, David | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Emery, Peter | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Longden, Gilbert | Speed, Keith |
| Steel, David (Roxburgh) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) | Vickers, Dame Joan | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Summers, Sir Spencer | Waddington, David | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Tapsell, Peter | Walker, Peter (Worcester) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) | Wall, Patrick | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) | Walters, Dennis | Worsley, Marcus |
| Teeling, Sir William | Ward, Dame Irene | Wylie, N. R. |
| Temple, John M. | Weatherill, Bernard | |
| Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Webster, David | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy | Wells, John (Maidstone) | Mr. R. W. Elliott and |
| Tilney, John | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William | Mr. Jasper More. |