HC Deb 21 October 1968 vol 770 cc966-95

Lords Amendment No. 124: In page 139, line 34, at end insert: ( ) Subject to the provisions of this Act

  1. (a) it shall be lawful for all persons holding a valid licence from the Board for which the prescribed fee has been paid to use the commercial waterways and the cruising waterways with any ship or boat in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in the licence;
  2. (b) the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence for the use of any commercial or cruising waterway by any person;
  3. (c) the term shall mean and include any authorisation issued by the Board for the movement of any vessel in return for payment."

Read a Second lime.

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate)

This is an Amendment which was quite rightly made by the Lords and I am surprised that the Government have seen fit to move that we disagree with their Lordships. I speak without any knowledge of why the Government disagree with their Lordships, who made a considerable number of improvements to this important Part of the Bill during their considerable discussions on it. That was all the more important because we in this House were very limited in our time to discuss it.

The point in question concerns rights of navigation on the inland waterways. It is an extremely important and fundamental aspect of public right on any highway. The Amendment is much more limited than the original Amendment on which the House of Lords had a tie, and in the Amendment as it is now put forward we come down to the nub of the matter.

Since the Amendment by another place was supported by members of all parties, I am still more surprised that the Government have seen fit to wish to disagree with it now that it has come to us. It seeks to ensure the very right that everyone wishes to see enjoyed by the public: the right to use the waterways under certain conditions as and when people wish to do so.

In dealing with what I understand to be the present legal position, I wish to refer first to the right of navigation and to quote from Coulson and Forbes on "Waters", sixth edition, as follows: The navigation of canals is, of course, open to all the public on payment of tolls, and it has been held that there is a public right of use of a canal with boats propelled by steam, provided they do no more injury than is occasioned by traction by horses. As to the definition of a canal, the same learned volume states that A canal may be defined to be an artificial highway by water. My third quotation, from Pratt on "Highways" is as follows: It is essential to the notion of a highway that it should be open to all members of the public. That is the position today. If, however, this House rejects the Amendment, the position will no longer be the same.

7.45 p.m.

The British Waterways Board, for example, has a conflict of responsibilities in this connection. It is, on the one hand, guardian of the waterways and, on the other hand, it is a commercial operator on those waterways. There could easily he a difference of opinion between those two responsibilities. Indeed, it might be that the Board would have to discriminate between one man and another or between one concern and another. I agree, as the Government will probably tell us, that it is unlikely that that would happen, but the mere fact that it is unlikely does not mean that it could not happen. I suggest, therefore, that steps should be taken to ensure that it could not happen.

The Amendment explains the matter very fully and its detailed words are extremely important. Paragraph (a) could not conceivably be said to do any harm to the Clause. Since the existing use is implied, I do not see why it should not be written firmly into the Statute Book. Secondly, there is no suggestion that the Waterways Board would unreasonably withhold its powers. Therefore, why not state that it is not to withhold them?

One advantage of the Amendment is that it would provide protection for independent operators. It would remove a possible criticism from the Board. Indeed, it could easily save it from embarrassment. It might encourage investment on the waterways, and we all agree that finances are an important aspect of the Board's responsibilities. The Amendment is of great importance also for commercial users, who spend a great deal of money every year on the waterways.

There are also what I would like to describe as the non-disadvantages. They do not necessarily add to the importance of the Clause but they certainly do no possible harm to it. They include such matters as the fact that the control of pleasure craft by the Waterways Board remains safety factors, which obviously are of fundamental importance, would remain exactly as before and the same management flexibility would remain. For all these reasons, I suggest that this is an Amendment which the Government should find it easy to accept.

Linked very much with this is the right of claim against injury, which was discussed in Committee, when the Minister of State said: Anybody who sustains injury in navigating on a waterway, with a licence from the Board, will have a right against the Board in the same way as he would have a right against the Railway Board. This is completely covered under the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 2nd May, 1968; c. 3063–4] The Minister subsequently said that he would look into the matter. He has not yet given a further answer. Possibly, the Amendment affords him a suitable opportunity to do so, because my interpretation of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957, is that that is not the case.

Section 2(1) of that Act is as follows: An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the 'common duty of care', to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise. The words "by agreement" destroy the earlier argument of the Minister of State, although possibly he may be able to tell us more now.

I have here a copy of the licence form issued by the British Waterways Board which must be filled in by anyone wishing to obtain a licence to use waterways. On the back, paragraph 8 of the conditions reads as follows: The Board shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the owner's craft or any property on board thereof nor for any personal injury (whether fatal or otherwise) to any person on the craft or upon any property of the Board in the course of proceeding to or departing from the craft whether such loss damage or injury is caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Board their servants or agents or not. I suggest to the Minister of State that at the present time paragraph 8 does not tally with the existing law.

I am very much in favour of the principle of not taking away any public right, as I think are most people in this country. I am surprised that the Government should have taken an opposite view. The mere unlikelihood of the Board unreasonably withholding, and so on, is irrelevant. It is the fact that it could do so which is so important.

The one waterway which has acted under the same regulations very happily for 36 years is the Thames Conservancy. Indeed, the opening words of the Amendment are exactly similar to words contained in Section 79 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. We need equality among those who wish to navigate, and that equality will be lost if we disagree with the Lords Amendment.

The white Paper "British Waterways Recreation and Amenity", which was published just over a year ago, was almost the only White Paper to be published by this Government which was universally approved when it first appeared. Unfortunately, between the time of the publication of the White Paper in September last year and the Transport Bill in December, somebody in the Government had second thoughts. There is no mention in the White Paper of the withdrawal of those public rights. The Minister may shake his head, but there is no mention of it, and it is in the Bill. I am sad that this is so, and that the Government have missed the oppor- tunity of admitting their mistakes, although there is still time.

I hope that the fact that the Minister has not spoken before indicates that he will be persuaded by what I have said and what my hon. Friends will say in due course. I believe that it will be in the interests of the users of the waterways, who are the people with whom we are concerned, that we should agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Swingler

First I must apologise to the House. I somehow had the curious and obviously quite inaccurate impression that there would be no disagreement about this. I thought that the reasons why we moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment were well understood and that the argument had been raked over at such tremendous length that the House would not wish to do so again. I apologise for making this mistake. I should have made a statement at the beginning as to why we moved to disagree.

I am saddened by what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has just said. He has gone rather widely over the arguments. He has had responsibility for dealing with the waterways section of the Bill over a considerable part of these proceedings, and I am saddened to think that he prefers the legalistic argument about rights to navigate canals, many of which have long been derelict, to the priorities which were put forward in the White Paper. I would not put the two on a par. The White Paper tried to put forward priorities for the waterways system, based on the available funds. I should be very much saddened if those people who had genuinely supported the priorities set forth in the White Paper were now completely confused as a result of a legalistic argument, and ended by preferring the latter.

The reasons we move to disagree with the Amendment are simple. The Amendment seeks to provide that it shall be lawful for all persons holding a valid licence from the Waterways Board to use the commercial and cruising waterways in the manner and for the purposes described in the licence, and that the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of such a licence.

The first part of the Amendment is wholly and completely unnecessary. It is simply a provision saying that the holder of a valid licence can navigate in accordance with the terms of the licence by virtue of the contract which the licence itself constitutes. I think legal gentlemen will agree that there is no need to put into an Act of Parliament that a licence holder can navigate in accordance with the terms of the licence. However, that is what is being proposed here.

The second part of the Amendment introduces something that is entirely novel. There has been a good deal of confusion in this controversy about so-called rights in relation to the waterways. I say emphatically that we and the British Waterways Board believe, and have always been advised, that pleasure craft—and I am speaking of pleasure craft and not of freight-carrying craft—use the waterways in this country only by licence from the Board.

There is a clear distinction between the rights, as they are called, of freight-carrying craft and of pleasure craft. The legal advice given over a long period of time to Ministers and to the Waterways Board is that pleasure craft generally speaking have no right of navigation at all; they navigate because of the licences issued by the Waterways Board. Therefore the Board has discretion whether or not to grant licences. I am advised, and the precedents have been looked up, that that has always been the position with pleasure craft.

The controversy has raged in regard to freight carrying craft, although most of our waterways do not have freight carrying craft any more. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate has been talking about rights as if these had been long standing or traditional. Over the whole period of history no such right of navigation for pleasure craft has existed, and the Board has therefore always had, and we are simply proposing it should continue to have, a normal discretionary power in this respect.

There is another part to the Amendment which is very important as those who have followed the controversies over the years will know. To some extent the Amendment would mean a reversion to the system operating before the Transport Act, 1962. Before that Act, the charges and the terms which the British Transport Commission could impose for the use of the waterways were, as hon. Members will know, subject to a charges scheme made in 1958, which stated that the charges and the terms had to be reasonable. If anyone considered at that time that they were not reasonable, he could appeal to the Transport Tribunal.

8.0 p.m.

That system was abolished by the 1962 Act, under which the Board was given "commercial freedom", as it was expressed then. We have considered this matter carefully in relation to our whole inheritance in the waterways system and to what was done in the 1962 Act, and we now consider that the administration of the Waterways Board should not be fettered in the way proposed in the Amendment, but we believe that the Board should continue to have the commercial freedom which, it would generally be agreed, has been reasonably exercised since 1962. Therefore we should not revert, which is what this Amendment would mean, to the system which existed before 1962.

These are the simple and straightforward reasons why we consider that the Amendment should not be accepted. I emphasise again: the licence holder's position is secure, through the terms of the licence and of the contract which the licence represents. Over the years, the Waterways Board has proven that it acts reasonably in this respect and there is no need to provide something in the Act, any more than there is a need to make a provision about the Railways Board having to sell railway tickets in a reasonable way. It is not necessary.

When hon. Members talk about rights, I hope that they will be very careful in their definitions, because it is not correct for people to assume, or to be led to believe, that the right to use pleasure craft on the waterways system is an inherited right. Our legal advisers say that this right does not exist. It is there by virtue of the action of the Board in confirming contracts by means of licences, and we think that that is the right way for the system to continue to be conducted.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I must admit that I was concerned when none was forthcoming, since this part of the Bill was not dealt with in Committee. My only comment is that, having heard his explanation, I think that there might be another reason as well as misunderstanding—that his Ministry realised that his explanation was so weak that it had better not be put to the House.

He has confirmed the very good reason for the Amendment, and I cannot understand what the Government object to. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to divide the waterways into three categories, and provide those which will be commercial waterways and those known as cruising waterways. As he said, the Board will have the power to grant licences to private individuals to make use either for commercial or pleasure purposes of the commercial and cruising waterways. All that the Amendment does—this is why it is difficult to understand the objections—is say that, in using that power to grant licences, the Board should not unreasonably refuse them.

Of course the Minister of State is right to say that paragraph (a) of the Amendment is unnecessary, in that it adds nothing to the existing law. But it is only unnecessary in that it is declaratory of the existing law, and there is no harm in having in a Bill a statement of the existing law.

But the real need for paragraph (b) has surely been confirmed by the Minister of State when he said that there is no inherent right for an individual to use the canals. The right is discretionary in the Board, in which case why should Parliament not state, as the Amendment does, that in using that discretion, it should not unreasonably refuse a licence?

In other words, if an individual who has been refused a licence believes that the Board, in so doing, has acted not on proper commercial grounds but unreasonably, he will be entitled to challenge that refusal. That is all that the Amendment tries to do, and I should have thought that it was a valid Amendment, which improved the Bill.

Mr. Swingler

Does the hon. Gentleman think then, in relation to every nationalised board and service, that we should put into its relevant Statute that it should not unreasonably refuse to perform the service for which it exists—should not, for example, unreasonably refuse to sell coal or railway tickets? One of the purposes of the White Paper was to make clear the incentives to the Waterways Board to make the waterways commercial and consequently to gain the maximum revenue from pleasure craft. This is what it exists to do.

Mr. Carlisle

Of course I am not saying that every act of every nationalised body should of necessity be subject to the right of appeal. But when a statutory board has the power to refuse the use of the canals to any person or group, especially when we want the canals widely used, it is not unreasonable that Parliament should say that that refusal should not be unreasonable.

I will take the Minister of State up on his examples, of the Coal Board selling coal or the Railways Board railway tickets. That is wholly different. There is a commercial incentive for the Railways Board to sell tickets, just as there is for any shop to sell me any goods, and I do not expect a clause in a contract to say that a particular shop should not unreasonably refuse me any goods—although, incidentally, I think that that is the position in regard to the public house trade.

But we are concerned about the Waterways Board because not only is it the owner of the rights to use the canal: it is also a commercial user of the canals. Therefore, where as it is commercially in the Railways Board's interests to sell as many tickets as possible, it may be in the Waterways Board's interests to try to prevent any other form of competition with pleasure craft on its canals. It is because there is this conflict between the possible commercial interest of the Board and its position as the body granting licences that it is vital to state that it should not have power unreasonably to withhold a licence.

This is nothing new. Any lease which the Minister of State or I might grant to each other for a house will invariably contain a clause about freedom to sublet, which shall not be unreasonably refused. We are saying that a statutory body, given the powers to grant or refuse licences, should not refuse them unreasonably. If it is believed that they are being refused unreasonably, an individual should have the right to take action against the board presumably through the courts, to prove that it had acted outside its powers.

Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it might be in the commercial interest of the Board to refuse a licence?

Mr. Carlisle

That was the point which I tried to make. As commercial operators, the Board could have a commercial interest in retaining a monopoly and refusing to grant a licence to others wishing to use the canal for the same purpose.

Mr. Swingler

I hope that the hon. Member will give evidence of the Waterways Board preventing people from using the waterways when they have both a financial interest and a financial duty to maximise revenue from the waterways. They have been making a tremendous effort to bring about a greater use of the waterways. I hope that we shall be given the evidence that people have been prevented from using them.

Mr. Carlisle

I am not saying that there is any evidence that that has ever been done. I accept the Minister's statement that they have used their discretion wisely in the past. But that is not the point. We are legislating for the future. I am not making an attack on the general manner in which the Board uses its discretion at present. I accept what the Lord Chancellor said in another place—that to his knowledge it has conducted itself extremely well.

The Minister of State said that to an extent we were going behind the 1962 position. In fact, we are going back to a better position. According to the Minister, until 1962 it was arguable whether the Board had any right to refuse licences. The 1962 Act provided that they could impose any conditions they wished on the grant of a licence. The Amendment says that it is reasonable that that discretion should be fettered only to the extent that they should not be entitled to refuse a licence unreasonably.

The Lord Chancellor said that there was conflict between the two ideas. With respect, I do not think that that is necessarily so. The Board would still be entitled to impose any condition it considered reasonable on the grant of a licence, but if it imposed conditions which were wholly unreasonable and impracticable, then under the Amendment the applicant for the licence would be able to go to court and say, "The Board is unreasonably refusing me a licence". When assessing the value of the conditions, the court, I take it, would have to take into account that the conditions imposed must not be so unreasonable as to amount to an unreasonable refusal.

I am wholly dissatisfied with the Minister's explanation. This is a small point, but I believe that the Amendment improved the Bill. Because I have been concerned that the Government are not prepared to accept it, I hope that we stand by what was done in another place.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

It is as refreshing as it is surprising to hear such libertarian sentiments emanating from their Lordships. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) made some temperate and agreeable remarks reflecting what their Lordships in another place had said in putting forward this argument. I am familiar with these arguments of libertarianism because I have been on the left of politics all my life and I know the philosophical argument which can be put forward for the widest amount of personal freedom.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southgate will not take it unkindly if I say that it is constitutionally open to any British citizen to walk into the Ritz Hotel, the Savoy, the Carlton Towers or any other plush establishment. He has the same right as any hon. Member who is a millionaire. But in fact he cannot do so because he cannot discharge the bill.

We are discussing an attempt at this late stage to impose an additional duty on the Waterways Board such as it does not have under the unamended Act of Parliament. I do not want to be dragged down into legal quibbles, but the proposition amounts to this: it imposes an additional obligation on the Waterways Board so that unless it takes this action reasonably it may be open at once to the starting of a legal action, although the duty which it is called upon to discharge under the terms of its contract in granting a licence may be incapable of performance because of the cost involved. That is a valid argument which hon. Members opposite who are lawyers appreciate as much as does anyone else. I am sad sometimes to see this kind of situation exploited for purely sectional interests, when all the merits of the arguments are in favour of doing something reasonable which does not go beyond what is possible and what is commercially feasible in the circumstances in which the canals are operated.

The canals have been derelict for the best part of 60 years. Ever since the railways started, the canals have been falling into decay. That is a sad reflection on our industrial history which I and many other hon. Members who have a genuine interest in the waterways regret very much. There has been neglect for all these generations.

I speak without apology as a supporter of the Government on this issue. Sometimes I am a little critical of my own Government, but the fact is that in the last four years the Labour Government have done more to restore the canals to some useful purpose than has been done in the last 50 years. It is a little ungenerous or ungallant for hon. Members opposite to throw at the Government the charges which they have thrown at them in the debate.

I want to see the waterways improved for the enjoyment of our young people who are interested, for example, in boating. I have the very best reasons for holding that view. Members of my family are very interested in that form of enjoyment. My son would be very annoyed with me if he were in the gallery listening to my speech. He is probably one of the few people in the country who have navigated a large boat through all the hazards, pitfalls and obstacles from the north, at Lymm dock, to the Thames; he was nearly arrested when he reached the Thames for not having a Thames Conservancy licence.

I know the arguments in favour of the waterways being revived and made useable in many beautiful stretches throughout the country, but it is unrealistic at this time to claim that the waterways should not have this small protection against unreasonable litigation which might be initiated by interested groups of people if the Amendment were passed.

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) made an interesting case, but it had nothing to do with the Amendment, which is on a narrow point. It merely states that …the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence… The hon. Gentleman said that it was not necessary to state that in the Bill because the Government should have the protection of being able to refuse a licence unreasonably. He said that it would be undignified and ungallant to require the Board to be reasonable. The Minister, on the other hand, argued the matter from the reverse angle and said that if such an Amendment were accepted, similar Amendments would be needed in the Statutes applying to all other nationalised industries to say that they should not be unreasonable in selling tickets, coal, stamps and anything else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out the difference. In this case we are considering the licence of a user, which is a continuing object. It is not like saying that a person should not refuse to grant a licence to cross his land if he has the discretion to do so. We are saying that the discretion in this case should not be exercised unreasonably. The question has no practical similarity to coal, tickets or stamps.

If a man goes into a post office and points to a stamp in the middle of a sheet and says, "Give me that one", it is reasonable that the post office clerk should reply, "No. You must have the one on the edge". The discretion here is one for a continuing use. Although the Minister said that in this case the Board must maximise its profits and would not be unreasonable, he must accept that people have human emotions of prestige and dislike. The person in charge may not like the person who wants a licence. The issuing officer may act unreasonably, and such an unreasonable act would probably have no commercial motive. It is not a sufficient argument to say that a similar provision would be needed for every nationalised industry.

Mr. Swingler

I do not see the difference. In this respect the Waterways Board is in exactly the same position as all the other boards. We are giving them the same discretion. There is the same possibility of the same human unreasonableness in every other board. A railways ticket clerk may not be in good temper and may refuse to sell one customer a ticket. But there is an obligation here as to the service which the board provides. The Waterways Board must maximise revenue from the use of the country's waterways under its control. That is the incentive to the Board not to be unreasonable. As I explained, we could not put in a provision like this, here and in every Statute, applying to every other nationalised industry.

Sir J. Foster

I agree that such a provision should not be in every such Statute, but the Minister should see the practical nature of the difference. If one is refused a stamp by a post office clerk one can send somebody else in to buy the stamp. The same applies if one is refused coal. If one is applying for a licence for a vessel, on the other hand, one cannot delegate somebody else to put in the application because one is stuck with the name of the vessel. One cannot put on a false beard and apply again for a licence, although one could go in disguise and try again to buy a stamp or some coal.

The same argument applies to the remarks made about one's right in this matter. Whether or not the right existed before, the Amendment merely says that … the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence … The Minister is right in saying that it is an alteration of the existing law. At present the discretion can be applied unreasonably, and for this reason the Government are fighting this issue needlessly. They object to the first part of the Amendment because, they say, it is unnecessary. By objecting to the second part the Minister is defending the right of the Board to be unreasonable. He should not bother himself with the question of whether or not such a provision should apply to other nationalised industries. He must say, "We maintain that the Board has every right to act unreasonably" because that is the burden of his argument.

The Amendment is being proposed only because of the possibility of discretion applying unreasonably to the detriment of somebody in a substantial manner. As I explained, this cannot happen in respect of coal or stamps. Either the Minister must continue to place himself in an untenable position and say, "We want the Board to act unreasonably", or he must accept the Amendment.

If we tried to insert a similar provision in the Statute relating to, for example, coal, everyone would say, "That is ridiculous. If we are refused coal we can go somewhere else to buy it." On the other hand, if one is refused a licence to cruise on a waterway or to cross some nationalised land—perhaps from one village to another—one might say that one has been refused permission unreasonably. It is at this point and in this connection—we can leave stamps, coal, tickets and everything else out of it—that we must ensure that the Board's discretion is not applied unreasonably. Even the contracts affecting landlords contain clauses about certain things not being refused unreasonably.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that this had nothing to do with the well-being of canals because they were already defined as cruising and commercial canals with licences issued for both. In this case we are not asking for licences to be issued for people to cruise on canals which have fallen into desuetude. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the efforts of the Labour Government on behalf of the canals, although they had nothing to do with the Amendment. Perhaps it was a good opportunity for him to boost the morale of his party on an achievement. It certainly needs boosting.

Mr. J. T. Price

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to some remarks I made off the cuff. Being an eminent lawyer, he will know that if a right is given to someone in a contract, then one automatically imposes a duty on the other party to the contract. We wish to ensure that we do not impose unreasonable duties on the Waterways Board, bearing in mind the shortage of funds and resources of the Board to make the canals navigable.

Sir J. Foster

I know what is at the back of the hon. Member's mind: he does not trust the lawyers or the courts. He thinks that if the right is given to a person to object to an unreasonable refusal he will bring litigation which is in itself unreasonable. That is his point. He is imposing unreasonable duty on the Board to act reasonably. That is a contradiction in terms. If boards act unreasonably, they should be made to act reasonably.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

There are no canals in my constituency, and although the ability of my constituents to contribute to the progress and prosperity of the country has been gravely damaged by the Bill as a whole, I do not suppose that many of them are directly concerned with the Amendment. But, to me, the absence of this right—of this Amendment in the Bill—is completely repugnant.

The Minister claimed that pleasure craft have never had a right to navigate the canals, and it is certainly true that on some canals, such as, I believe, the Derby Canal, they have not had that right. But his view has been contested bitterly for many years. There are many schools of thought about the question of whether pleasure craft do or do not have the right to navigate. Be that as it may, however it would be a great improvement if they had that right now.

The Minister spoke of commercial freedom. He said that it was important that the, Board should have commercial freedom. What is commercial freedom? It is the freedom to ruin one's competitors if one can. Who are the competitors of the Waterways Board on the canals? They are, very largely, the tenants of the Board. It is very difficult to operate on the canal system without being simultaneously a payer of licence fees to the Board and also a payer of rent to the Board. I do not think that any landlord should be put in the position of being able to ruin his tenants.

One may think that to say that is fanciful and far fetched, but since the Minister turned to the past, let us also turn to the past for a moment. For several years British Waterways ran an enterprise of pleasure craft on the waterways in direct competition with its tenants. This enterprise of British Waterways was consistently making a loss, so British Waterways was using the taxpayers' money in order to drive its own tenants out of business. A body that can do that in the past can not, to my mind, with certainty be trusted not to do it again in the future.

The Minister of State also said, as did other hon. Members, that we can rely on the fairness and good will of the Board. It may very well be that we can, but it is fair to point out that in the past one could not rely on that fairness and good will. I know of more than one example, and I say it advisedly and I have details, of where the Waterways Board attempted to ruin people who wished to use the waterways—

Mr. Swingler

I really must take up the hon. Member on this point. He is making an extremely damaging attack on the Waterways Board, which has from this House a responsibility to maximise the revenues of the waterways system as a whole. I have spent many years now in the Ministry of Transport trying to get a bigger use of waterways, with, I must say, not very much co-operation from many quarters. But if the hon. Gentleman has evidence to suggest that the Board has not been fulfilling that basic responsibility to administer the waterways so as to raise the maximum revenue, I wish that he would present it to us so that we could go into it.

Mr. Smith

I am speaking of the past, but the Minister's own words illustrate this cleavage. First he spoke of maximised use and then of maximised revenue—and they are not at all the same thing. It is this conflict in the past which has led to difficulties, and the confidence of waterways users in the waterways authorities is a very precarious plant indeed.

If the Minister wishes to maximise the revenue of the waterways, he must surely see that to give those who wish to use them this right and a protection against the tenants of the waterways being driven out of business by the competition of their landlords will inspire confidence and investment. In this way he will maximise his revenues. If he rejects the Amendment, he will simply re-create all the anxieties and suspicions that people have undoubtedly had in the past, and which have in the past prevented people from investing in and using the waterways. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

I rise to make a brief contribution in the hope that I may assist the Minister of State to understand that the examples he gave were irrelevant. To produce the selling of a railway ticket as a parallel to the right to navigate a canal is to produce a parallel, the lines of which are just about at right angles. They are totally different kinds of operation.

Mr. Swingler

The hon. Member must not misquote me. I was talking about the service for which the nationalised boards were brought into existence to provide. Apparently some hon. Members are in possession of evidence which has not been conveyed to me. Some years ago Parliament created the Waterways Board with the duty of providing a service for the benefit of users.

Dr. Winstanley

I listened to the Minister of State with as much care as I hope he will listen to me, and I heard him say that. He said that we could not write into every Act a right of appeal and he quoted certain examples with reference to the selling of coal, railway tickets and so on. Rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—the users believed that they had a right to navigate the waterways, a right which has subsequently become extinguished. The hon. Gentleman said that of course there is argument about whether the right to navigate was solely concerned with commercial use or could be extended to recreational use. He quoted a hesitantly expressed opinion by the Lord Chancellor, which has not been tested.

Section 17 of the Railways Act, 1873 says: Every railway company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water of the same so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay. It is the view of waterways users that this comprehensive right was later supported in the Transport Act, 1962. We understand that with the new measures dividing the waterways into commercial waterways, cruising waterways and the remainder, this right must necessarily be in part extinguished. People understand this and sympathise with it, particularly in view of acts taken in parallel, but we must remember that we preserve this right of appeal when there is the question of closing a railway. Since the users of waterways have lost the right of appeal, they look to some other guarantee that what they regarded as a right shall be protected.

I do not think the Minister of State has any more reason to assume that this would be used wantonly than we would assume that the Waterways Board would withhold licences wantonly. I do not think that is the case, but if he were willing to accept this Amendment it would do a great deal to reassure waterways users about what the future position will be. It would do a great deal to make them understand that the rights they believed they had will continue.

Mr. J. T. Price

These people want that right, whether it be real or imaginary, enshrined in the Bill. In the part of Lancashire which I represent scores of coalmines were closed long before nationalisation was the order of the day. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under private ownership no miner in my division had a right of appeal to any court against losing his employment as a result of a pit closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman so to remind the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), because it is irrelevant to the debate.

Dr. Winstanley

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to go into all the rights which from time to time become extinguished in various parts of the world, we should be here for a very long time. I am concerned solely with this one. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that every effort will be made to allow people to continue to navigate without let or hindrance.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I declare an interest: I am a member of the Council set up by Clause 108. I am not sure whether I am inhibited from speaking, as I notice that my Labour colleague is not in his place at the moment.

There has been an historic clash between the predecessors in business of the Waterways Board and users. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) said that the Board itself might be unreasonable. I do not believe that the present Board would seek to be unreasonable, but there is no doubt that its predecessors in business were just about as unreasonable as they could have been to waterway users and to their tenants.

The whole object of the Advisory Council set up by Clause 108 is to promote good will and good relationships between users and the Board. I believe that this sensible aim will be destroyed if the Lords Amendment is not accepted. Over the past 20 years the Inland Waterways Association has battled for its rights and for the navigation rights of its members. The Minister of State has said that these rights have never existed. I was flabbergasted by that statement. As I do not have a strong team of civil servants sitting in a box behind me to advise me, I cannot turn up some of the cases now. However, I am convinced that many cases have been brought by the Association or by its members. Had these cases not been brought before the courts, the waterways would not be as open as they are today.

I therefore hope that the Minister will recognise the rights of the using public on the waterways. The users think that they have these rights. The courts think that the users have them. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) reminded us of the Act which spells out these rights. Will the Minister confirm whether our Liberal colleague is right? If the hon. Gentleman was right and the courts have upheld users, the Minister is wrong and, no doubt with the best of motives, has been misleading the House.

Mr. Swingler

No. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not pay full attention to the details. I emphasised that I was not speaking about commercial craft. The controversy about rights over the years was in respect of commercial craft. I was speaking only about pleasure craft. I am advised—this is the best advice available to me—that, generally speaking, there has not been a right of navigation.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Wells

I heard the Minister say that, but. I also heard our Liberal colleague, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), read the relevant part of the Railways Act, 1873, which, as I understood it, did not differentiate between pleasure and commerce. Which is right?

I hope that the Minister will think again. He says that the Board will not be so silly as to be unreasonable. Very well. In that case, let us leave the Amendment as it stands. It does nobody any harm. If the Board are such sweetly reasonable people and will always be such, let us leave the Amendment there. If, on the other hand, the Board may be unreasonable, let the Amendment remain for that reason.

I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. If his Department's aim is that there should be a happy relationship between user and tenant, it is important that he should. The question of the tenant is of significance here because, if there is no commercial enterprise on the waterways, the building and hiring of boats and the offering of facilities, the waterways will silt up anyway. I suppose that I should declare an interest also as a boat owner. If people are to be encouraged to invest their money in boats, they must be assured of continuity and a definite future. The Minister tells us that they never had these rights. Let us have the matter clear. If the Amendment will do the Minister and his Board no harm, he should accept it.

Mr. Swingler

I deplore the attacks made on the Waterways Board, although I realise that some hon. Members were referring to the past, perhaps to the distant past. I have had a good deal to do with the Waterways Board over the past few years. It has made a tremendouse effort to try to gain new traffic and to encourage the use of the waterways by pleasure craft. This was one of the interests which led up to the White Paper, the publication of which was welcomed so widely in the autumn of last year. There seems to be a good deal of backsliding from that welcome now.

I hope that hon. Members who argue for detailed Amendments, basing their case on a critical attitude to the Waterways Board, will put the Ministry of Transport in possession of any facts, figures and evidence which could show how we could in any way magnify the use of our waterways as a practical proposition. It is a challenge, a challenge to everyone, but certainly a challenge to the Ministry of Transport to see what can be done to arrest the decline, which has been going on over a long time, in the use of waterways. It is a challenge to the Waterways Board. Incidentally, the Waterways Board has a statutory duty and responsibility to try to encourage and develop the use of waterways in all respects.

The present argument is somewhat on a par with the misunderstandings and the misrepresentations which have occurred throughout on Part VII, and on Clause 104 in particular. The provisions in this Part of the Bill are designed to provide a new sort of régime for our waterways system. I realise that some people do not like it or do not agree with it, but it is done deliberately in this way—by abolishing the confusing system of local Act navigation rights and maintenance obligations and substituting therefor the priorities now set out. In this connection, I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was confusing two things, the question of the maintenance obligations of the Board and the question of usership. The Bill includes the right to require the Board to maintain the commercial and cruising waterways in a condition suitable for use by freight carrying or pleasure cruising craft.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I find it difficult to see what questions of maintenance of the waterways have to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler

They were mentioned in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to leave the subject rapidly, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle spoke as if all rights were being swept away, I thought I ought to say what is in the Bill.

The other aspect is the inclusion of in incentive to the Board to maximise revenue from the use of the waterways. I know that on account of past history, there are many hon. Members who constantly wish to tie up the Waterways Board, unlike other boards, in all sorts of special provisions, obligations and impositions. They argue, as the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) argued tonight, that there was something unique about the position of the Waterways Board that distinguished it from all the other Boards which provide services whereby it should not have the right to be unreasonable although, apparently, all the other Boards should have the right to be unreasonable. That was how I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It could not be sustained for two minutes.

That argument demonstrates that many hon. Members opposite are obsessed with the idea of imposing in detail on the Waterways Board more and more things which would not enable it to exercise the judgment, freedom and priorities that it should exercise if it is to get on with the job of implementing the proposals in the White Paper on the waterway system.

This is the choice which we have to make. Either we are to have a Waterways Board which is encouraged to exercise judgment and commercial freedom and which is to get on with the job with a strong sense of priorities, or else we are to have provisions like this Amendment which lay down rules of behaviour in every little detail, as if the Board were children. That is the basis on which we disagree with the Amendment.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

Having listened to the debate—my constituency is well involved—I think that the Minister is taking a very narrow point of view on this issue. He is well out of touch with the opinion of the public, who find their freedoms being encroached upon little by little, day by day. They are alarmed and concerned. Seven hundred men do not work on a canal at the weekend cleaning it out for fun. They feel strongly about these things. The Minister should get in touch with the people in the constituencies.

Mr. Swingler

The Board is responsible for over 2,000 miles of waterway and has a staff of under 4,000 people. Therein lies its obligation. I trust that hon. Members who are concerned with the Board's finances will take the matter of its obligations into account in considering what the Board is able to do.

I would expect the hon. Member to agree, on the assumption that he has read our White Paper on the waterway system, that we must have some sort of priority about the future of the waterways system and that, since unlimited funds are not available, it is not possible to rehabilitate all the canals which, over the years, have been allowed to go derelict. If we do not, more canals will simply be allowed to go derelict and to become unusable. That is the present position, and it has occurred as a result of continuing all these ancient provisions which have existed throughout the continuous decline of the waterway system.

Dr. Winstanley

The Amendment exclusively concerns the waterways which are designated commercial and cruising waterways and which, on the Minister's admission, the Board has a statutory responsibility under the Act to maintain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I really must ask the Minister to confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler

We have had a number of speeches in the debate which have gone wide of the Amendment. If I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while, of course, I accept your Ruling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I dare say we have, but I have asked the Minister in his reply to confine himself to the purposes of the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler

In summing up, I merely reiterate that, for the reasons that I stated earlier, we wish the Waterways Board to have the commercial freedom that other nationalised boards have. The rights of users in respect of pleasurecraft have been established in the past by the terms of the licences obtained for the use of such craft. In view of the general reasons that I have stated in support of our view, I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

Might I put a question to my hon.. Friend before he sits down? I have listened to the whole debate, and I think I am right in saying that his main fear about accepting the Amendment is that he would expose the Waterways Board to unreasonable litigation. That is understandable. But he has been talking to us about the galaxy of legal talent that he has had on his side advising him in certain directions, and I accept that advice. However, has he not been told of the means which the courts have to prevent—and punish if it happens—unreasonable litigation? Can he tell us why he appears to fear this when the courts have very effective means of dealing with it?

Mr. Swingler

We are not talking here about unreasonable litigation. I am asking why the Waterways Board should have an obligation imposed on it which is not imposed upon any of the other nationalised boards and which would fetter its discretionary power. With the kind of Board that we have and the principles that we have laid down, there is no reason why its discretion at large should be fettered any more than that of other nationalised boards is.

Mr. Berry

At the beginning of the debate the Minister of State said that he did not expect us to have the debate and to oppose the Government's reaction. I am surprised. Having listened to the debate, he must realise that there are very strong views on this side on this subject. There was considerable discussion in another place, but that was because the discussion in the House of Commons was limited by the Guillotine. It was most important that we should have this debate.

I hoped that in his closing days at the Ministry the Minister would have changed from the very strict Minister that he was during the months in Standing Committee and would show himself a little more human and willing to compromise. But those hopes have not been realised.

My hon. Friends have over and over again demolished the arguments, such as they were, which were used by the Minister of State at the beginning of the debate, and I certainly include in that statement the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). There is very little left of the Minister's original arguments. We have established finally the point about the public rights of use of the waterways. Certainly even if they were not in existence before, I should have thought that we were all agreed that they should exist today. The Minister did not say anything about the dual responsibility of the Board vis-à-vis manager and competitor. I ask him to give an assurance that the Board will treat all users of waterways equally, including its own craft.

We have discussed all these arguments at great length, but I did not hear the Minister make a single point in favour of objecting to the Lords Amendment. The Lords Amendment is eminently reasonable and would be in the interests of all who use the waterways. I advise my hon. Friends to divide in favour of the Lords Amendment, and in doing so I give an assurance that when we return to office we shall restore those public rights, on which the Minister cast such scorn.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 208.

Division No. 304.] AYES [8.59 p.m.
Albu, Austen Ensor, David Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Alldritt, Walter Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) McBride, Neil
Allen, Scholefield Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) McCann, John
Anderson, Donald Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) MacDermot, Niall
Archer, Peter Faulds, Andrew Macdonald, A. H.
Armstrong, Ernest Fernyhough, E. McGuire, Michael
Ashley, Jack Finch, Harold McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Maclennan, Robert
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Ford, Ben McNamara, J. Kevin
Barnes, Michael Forrester, John MacPherson, Malcolm
Barnett, Joel Fowler, Gerry Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Baxter, William Fraser, John (Norwood) Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Beaney, Alan Freeson, Reginald Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Bence, Cyril Gardner, Tony Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Ginsburg, David Manuel, Archie
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Gourlay, Harry Mapp, Charles
Bidwell, Sydney Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Marks, Kenneth
Blackburn, F. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gregory, Arnold Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Maxwell, Robert
Booth, Albert Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mayhew, Christopher
Boston, Terence Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Mendelson, J. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Ar'hur Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Millan, Bruce
Boyden, James Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Bradley, Tom Hamling, William Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Harper, Joseph Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Brooks, Edwin Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Moyle, Roland
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Haseldine, Norman Neal, Harold
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Hattersley, Roy Newens, Stan
Buchan, Norman Hazell, Bert Norwood, Christopher
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Heffer, Eric S. Ogden, Eric
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret O'Malley, Brian
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hilton, W. S. Orbach, Maurice
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Orme, Stanley
Cant, R. B. Hooley, Frank Oswald, Thomas
Carmichael, Neil Horner, John Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Padley, Walter
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Chapman, Donald Howie, W. Paget, R. T.
Coe, Denis Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Palmer, Arthur
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Park, Trevor
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Crawshaw, Richard Hunter, Adam Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Cronin, John Hynd, John Pavitt, Laurence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Janner, Sir Barnett Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pentland, Norman
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Jeger, George (Goole) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Price, William (Rugby)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Probert, Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rankin, John
Delargy, Hugh Kelley, Richard Rees, Merlyn
Dell, Edmund Kenyon, Clifford Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dempsey, James Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Dewar, Ronald Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lawson, George Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Dickens, James Leadbitter, Ted Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dobson, Ray Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Doig, Peter Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Rose, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Lestor, Miss Joan Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Eadie, Alex Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sheldon, Robert
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lipton, Marcus Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Ellis, John Lomas, Kenneth Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
English, Michael Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.) Tinn, James Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Tomney, Frank Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Silverman, Julius Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Skeffington, Arthur Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Slater, Joseph Wallace, George Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Small, William Watkins, David (Consett) Winnick, David
Spriggs, Leslie Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Weitzman, David Woof, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Wellbeloved, James Yates, Victor
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Swingler, Stephen Whitlock, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Symonds, J. B. Wilkins, W. A. Mr. J. D. Concannon and
Taverne, Dick Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick Mr. Charles Grey.
Thornton, Ernest Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Miscampbell, Norman
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Glyn, Sir Richard Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Astor, John Goodhart, Philip Montgomery, Fergus
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Goodhew, Victor More, Jasper
Awdry, Daniel Gower, Raymond Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Grant, Anthony Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Grant-Ferris, R. Murton, Oscar
Balniel, Lord Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Batsford, Brian Gurden, Harold Neave, Airey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall, John (Wycombe) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Bell, Ronald Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Nott, John
Bessell, Peter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Onslow, Cranley
Biffen, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Biggs-Davison, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Black, Sir Cyril Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Blaker, Peter Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bossom, Sir Clive Harvie Anderson, Miss Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hastings, Stephen Percival, Ian
Braine, Bernard Hawkins, Paul Peyton, John
Brewis, John Hay, John Pounder, Rafton
Brinton, Sir Tatton Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bruce-Cardyne, J. Heseltine, Michael Prior, J. M. L.
Bryan, Paul Higgins, Terence L. Pym, Francis
Buchanan Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) Hill, J. E. B. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hirst, Geoffrey Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bullus, Sir Eric Holland, Philip Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Burden, F. A. Hooson, Emlyn Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Hordern, Peter Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hornby, Richard Robson Brown, Sir William
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Cary, Sir Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chichester-Clark, R. Iremonger, T. L. Royle, Anthony
Clegg, Walter Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Russell, Sir Ronald
Cooke, Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Scott-Hopkins, James
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Sharples, Richard
Cordle, John Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Costain, A. P. Jopling, Michael Silvester, Frederick
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Sinclair, Sir George
Crouch, David Kaberry, Sir Donald Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Crowder, F. P. Kerby, Capt. Henry Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Currie, G. B. H. Kershaw, Anthony Speed, Keith
Dalkeith, Earl of King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stainton, Keith
Dance, James Kitson, Timothy Steel, David (Roxburgh)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Knight, Mrs. Jill Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Lambton, Viscount Summers, Sir Spencer
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Tapsell, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lane, David Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Langford-Holt, Sir John Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Doughty, Charles Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Drayson, G. B. Longden, Gilbert Teeling, Sir William
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Loveys, W. H. Temple, John M.
Eden, Sir John Lubbock, Eric Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McAdden, Sir Stephen Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) MacArthur, Ian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Emery, Peter Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Eyre, Reginald McMaster, Stanley Vickers, Dame Joan
Farr, John Maddan, Martin Waddington, David
Fisher, Nigel Maginnis, John E. Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fortescue, Tim Marten, Neil Wall, Patrick
Foster, Sir John Maude, Angus Walters, Dennis
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Mawby, Ray Ward, Dame Irene
Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Webster, David
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Donald (Dudley) Woodnutt, Mark
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Worsley, Marcus TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Winstanley, Dr. M. P. Wright, Esmond Mr. Hector Monro and
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Wylie, N. R. Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Younger, Hn. George

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.