§ Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. JacksonI am about to conclude Mr. Speaker. My case, which I put to my hon. Friend in all sincerity, is that 1012 if the Amendment is allowed to stand, the Waterways Board will adopt a much more reasonable approach than it has done hitherto. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Board is not taking this matter seriously.
Assurance has been given of a three-year moratorium and that nothing will be done to prevent restoration, but there has been no commitment on the part of the Board to enter into meaningful and realistic negotiations with the local authorities concerned. The fact that so many local authorities were excluded from the meetings suggests to me, as, I am sure, it does to other hon. Members, that the Board is not serious in intention.
There is another point. My hon. Friend implies that the Board intends to take this matter seriously. Why, therefore, has it not undertaken consultations with the advisory council which has been set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who is a member of that council, reassures me that there have been no discussions with it on this question. Therefore, the impression which I am given is that the Board does not intend business. With legal action hanging over its head, I feel that it would get around a table with the parties and undertake meaningful negotiations. If the House defeats the Amendment, I have no such confidence that it will do so.
§ Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)I hope that the House will forgive me if I break into the merits of the Bill. As we are on an entirely non-party political point, perhaps I may be excused for doing so.
I support with all the warmth I can the speeches from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in what they have said tonight to the Minister of State. I know the Minister of State, and I know his great interest in the matter. I know that the former Parliamentary Secretary made it, one might say, almost his life's task to understand the inland waterway system and how it works. Everything that needs to be known about this problem is known in the Ministry.
I have been steeped in the problem of the Ashton Canal and the Macclesfield 1013 Canal and The High Peak for years, ever since I was on the Parham Committee. It has always been a great bone of contention. I hoped that when the new Waterways Board was formed under the 1962 Act, it would take a more realistic view of the problem than it appears to be doing.
I am very disappointed in the attitude of the City Fathers of Manchester. If ever a gift was given to them to make their city beautiful, it is to adopt the Ashton Canal and make it something of which the whole of Manchester—indeed, the whole of North-West England—might be proud. It could be done at a very reasonable figure.
I know that the Minister means to do the right thing and that he understands these problems, but he has put forward the wrong idea to us this evening. Nothing has been done about these two canals. They have been festering, particularly the Ashton Canal, for a very long time. Three years is neither here nor there. On what the Minister has put to us tonight, I cannot see that anything serious will happen. I should like to hear him say that he and his Ministry will ensure that something positive is clone in the course of the next three years, not that they will simply stand by and wait for the three years to run out, when, as I understand it, the Waterways Board will be able to do what it likes. It would be a great scandal. The Marple Flight is one of the great gems of British canal architecture. It is all part of the "Cheshire ring", a through route, part of something which will be of the utmost advantage to the amenity of the country for many years to come. I most earnestly beg the Minister to have very serious second thoughts about this"
§ Mr. W. S. Hilton (Bethnal Green)One of the tragedies of this situation, which I think the Minister of State appreciates, is that so much acrimony has arisen over a situation in which two groups of people are trying to do their best to consider the future of an amenity, situated in a particular area perhaps, but one which would be enjoyed by everybody who has ever used the canals for holidays or any other pleasure purpose.
It has been suggested that the timing of the action taken by those interested in the preservation of the Peak Forest 1014 and Ashton Canals was suspect in that it happened after the publication of the Bill. But I can assure the Minister that the Inland Waterways Group and interested local authorities had been working on the matter for almost three years beforehand. I believe that the timing was entirely fortuitous and that no sharp practice was intended.
I realise why the Board tried to meet only the riparian authorities initially. It has in the first place to meet the authorities which are primarily interested. However, I ask the Minister of State not to give such great weight to the fact that three out of four of the local authorities immediately concerned say that the canal ought to be filled in. He should examine the reason why they made this statement. I think he would find that it was based purely on what they believe to be the financial grounds involved; grounds which might not exist. They believe that if the canals are filled in, no on-costs would fall—
§ Mr. MappI assure my hon. Friend that in general terms the City of Manchester and the two counties are apprehensive about the £ s. d., but a greater fact is that some parts of the canals go through a very heavily congested part of the City of Manchester and neighbouring authorities. The loss of child life in particular is one of the most predominant reasons why the City of Manchester and neighbouring authorities are very apprehensive about canals which are not used.
§ Mr. HiltonWhat we are trying to get across is that if the canals are used in the correct way, instead of children losing their lives the canals will give many years of sport, pleasure and considerable enjoyment for childrent now and in the future. The financial aspect has been dealt with a great deal, and I do not intend to go into it intensively. Some authorities may believe that filling in would relieve them of financial responsibility in the future. I do not think this is so. My experience of filling in is that often it is the local authority which is left ultimately with the burden, and the Waterways Board does not bear it.
I am trying to speak objectively on this matter. After all, the Bethnal Green branch of the Grand Union Canal is a long distance from the canals about 1015 which we are speaking, and I have no vested interest in them! I am sorry that the Government find themselves in the position of appearing to be obstructive. The future of the canals was on a razor edge for many years and over a period when the Conservative Party was in power. It was this Government that guaranteed the life of the canals for cruising. That is why I feel sad that the Government should now appear to be obstructive. It should never be forgotten that we owe a debt of gratitude to the present Government for the fact that the canals are guaranteed for cruising and for general enjoyment.
My hon. Friend asked how it was that the Inland Waterways Association and others had discriminated in favour of these canals. But this is not a sudden infatuation with them. When these canals were put into the "remainder" category originally, there was an immediate objection and an attempt to get them out of it into the "cruising" section. There have been continuing attempts to get these canals brought into the cruising category.
They could form part of the cruising ring. Anyone who has cruised on our canal system knows how valuable to enjoyment such cruising is. I have good cause to know this because for some years I have cruised regularly on our canals, obeying the injunctions of several Chancellors to avoid holidays abroad!
I think that my hon. Friend was being sincere when he said that there would be a three year moratorium on anything being done which might prevent these canals being restored and in saying that, during that period, he hoped that the various authorities would discuss the future of these canals with a view to a decision being reached on the best way in which they could be used. This is really all we have been trying to do for a long time. If he feels like that, in principle then he does not differ from any of us. In view of this he should have another look at the question.
§ Dr. WinstanleyI am sorry to detain the House on this matter but it lies at the heart of my constituency and is one about which my constituents are worried and concerned. The part of the canals 1016 we are considering—the Marple flight of locks—is in the centre of my constituency and a great deal of work has been done on the locks by my constituents. The canals reach through Bredbury and Romiley in part of my constituency and the Bredbury and Romiley Urban District Council was an organiser of these proceedings.
The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has given the full history of the matter and I want to move on to other matters, particularly to underline the excellent speeches of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), both of whom accompanied me on a deputation with representatives of 17 local authorities to the Ministry. I underline everything they said, as well as everything said by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), who has had so long and distinguished an association with the cause of the preservation of our waterways.
I do not want to deal with legal matters but to bring us away from the dusty atmosphere of counsel's chambers into the open. We are talking of a ring of canals made up of the Bridgwater Canal and the Rochdale Canal—which are private and therefore not the concern of the Board—the Trent and Mersey Canal, the Macclesfield Canal and the Lower Peak Forest Canal, altogether making a ring of 110 miles of navigable waterways through some of the most beautiful countryside in England, including beautiful parts of Cheshire and Derbyshire.
Yet this ring of waterways is immediately adjacent to one of the largest industrial conurbations in the world, whose enormous population is desperate for open air for leisure and recreation. What has happened to the ring? A small section of it—seven miles—has become unnavigable in parts. But the effect is that the whole circuit is unnavigable as a circuit. One can go round the circuit for 100 miles and must then go back. The opening up of the small part now unnavigable would be of immense value to users. We are talking not only about boat users and the people who boat. People benefit from canals in many ways—fishermen, people who walk by canals, people who ride horses along the towpaths, people who canoe, and so on.
1017 10.15 p.m.
If we allow the canal to become un-navigable and if the locks are not used and there is no circulation of water, the canal will become derelict in other ways and unsuitable for other pursuits like fishing, because it will become overgrown. That aspect of the matter has also to be considered. As has been emphasised, we are not considering merely whether a small section is put in order, or whether nothing is done. If we do not put it in order, we shall have to do an immense job of filling in what is becoming a dangerous section of canal, as the Minister acknowledges.
But we have to do something else, because as long as that small section remains closed, the whole ring will remain closed, and if the whole ring remains closed and there is no movement of water round the ring and through the various locks, the cost of the maintenance of the remainder will increase and increase. Therefore, we would probably be making a considerable economy in maintenance by opening up this small area which the Waterways Board already has an obligation to maintain.
I ask the Minister to regard this not as a tiny local matter, but as a matter of immense importance to people living in an industrial area and who would have the opportunity for recreational activities of many kinds. Incidentally—and this should commend our proposal to him—they would be taken away from the overcrowded roads in the area.
We have been asked why these two canals should be singled out for special treatment. This was the argument of the Lord Chancellor in the debate in another place when he said:
The only reason, as I understand it, for singling out these two canals is the pending litigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086.]That is not correct. These canals are unique in that they form the only stretch which was navigable in 1961 and which has not been maintained. There is no shadow of doubt about their having been designated as navigable and if they were navigable, they would now appear in the Schedule and there would be no argument.The Minister has said that at least we shall have this moratorium of three years while there are discussions between 1018 the local authorities and the Waterways Board. If he had added that there would be an interval while the advice of the Advisory Council was sought, we would have accepted that as a more realistic assurance, because we are dealing with many people who have been waging this campaign for many years. They have tried to do so by many methods. They sought opportunities to put the canals in order themselves. They organised teams of workers, but they were frustrated, because at that time the Board would not allow them to do the work voluntarily. They pushed and pushed and in the end 18 local authorities and many other bodies came together and started this litigation. If they were to be frustrated at this eleventh hour, they would be desperately disappointed. They are people who have worked hard and who are working for something for which we know the Minister, too, is working.
A perfectly reasonable and conciliatory offer has been made which will allow people to discuss this matter against the background of the previous situation. These canals have not been singled out for special treatment and nor would this establish a precedent for similar treatment to be given to other canals. We merely say that this ring of 110 miles of waterway should be open. We say that it should have been kept open by the Board, but that it is now possible to open it and that to open it and keep it open would cost less than to close and keep closed that small section.
We also say that these things would have been done, had the litigation taken place, or might have been done. We say that now at least there is an opportunity of it actually happening. If this House, after what has happened in the other place, should suddenly snatch away this opportunity for which these people have been working for years, and on which ratepayers have spent a great deal of money, there will be a great deal of disillusionment about our doings tonight.
§ Mr. CarlisleThe excellence of previous speeches made from both sides enables me to be very brief. It has been said that there were 18 local authorities among the plaintiffs in this action. Two of those authorities are within my constituency. Neither were riparian owners in respect of these canals, but they are concerned because they represent areas 1019 affected by the canals in Cheshire, and they know full well the enjoyment and concerned because they represent areas get out of the canals.
If I may use a phrase used by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), they have started this action in the belief, and on the advice, that they have a reasonable case against British Waterways, and they have incurred costs to that end. The point I want to make is that it is all very well to say that this is pending litigation, and that one can always legislate to change pending litigation. This action is based on years of past neglect, or alleged past neglect, and it is based on the complaint that for many years British Waterways has failed in what has been its statutory duty to maintain these canals.
If this was any other form of action, if it was a claim for damages, the appearance of this Measure could not prevent the claim for damages which have accrued to that date. In this form of action one is asking for relief by the putting of these canals into the state that they would have been had British Waterways carried out its statutory duties.
There are those who are deeply concerned about seeing that these canals should continue to be an amenity to the area, and they should have the right to pursue that action to show that the present neglect, and the fact that the canals are not in the Second Schedule or Part 2 of the Twelfth Schedule, is due to neglect caused by breach of statutory duty by British Waterways over the last seven years.
It would be extremely unfortunate if, due to this Measure, this action cannot be continued, and as a result canals which clearly would have been kept as cruising canals, are to be lost for ever. The Member for Manchester, Blackley and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) among others, referred to the lack of amenity in the North-West of England. One knows full well that these canals are needed, that they are used, as the canals in that area are used, to provide pleasure amenities for the people there.
In the North-West this year and last year it has been "Operation Spring Clean". At a time when great efforts are being made by local authorities to 1020 clean up buildings and land in their areas, in an effort to make the whole area more attractive, it is unfortunate that the same spring cleaning cannot take place in these canals, so as to bring the whole of the canal ring back into use for the benefit of the people.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)I intervene in this debate to say a few words upon the legal points arising. The Lords Amendments refers in express terms to:
… proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings.It has been suggested in certain quarters—I confess that it has not been emphasised in this debate—that there is a constitutional innovation in passing legislation which will deprive the relators in this action of my right hon. and learned Friend of the basis of their claim and of the opportunity of proving their case. It has been hinted that there is some element of oppressiveness.When the Bill was introduced, it provided that Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, which was a provision requiring the Waterways Board to maintain certain inland waterways, shall cease to apply and that local enactments shall also cease to have effect. This provision, if it became law, would be fatal to the action which the relators contemplated. The application to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to grant his fiat was made on 14th December, 1967, after the contents of the Transport Bill were known and when the relators knew what would be the effect on any action of theirs if the Bill went through Parliament unamended. That date is of great importance. It is a matter of moment that the proceedings in the action began after the contents of the Bill were known.
When this occurred, let it be observed what my right hon. and learned Friend did, because I am anxious that this should be perfectly clear and well understood. He drew the attention of the relators to to the fact that the provisions of the Transport Bill, which had meanwhile been published, might well have the effect of rendering their action ineffectual and that if they proceeded with it they would be throwing good money after bad. He 1021 drew attention to that in what was unquestionably an entirely correct and proper manner. In the light of that, they gave further consideration to the case, but, nonetheless, decided to carry on with the action. I do not know what was in their minds. It may well be that their expectation, and even hope, was that there would be an amendment of the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Therefore, they re-submitted their application for my right hon. and learned Friend to commence proceedings with them as relators in an action.
At that point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to have regard to the state of the law at the time that the application for the relation was made. The state of the law was pretty clear. There was the current responsibility on the part of the Waterways Board to maintain the canal. It was in that fashion that these proceedings started, and the fiat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was granted on 24th January this year.
10.30 p.m.
It is clear beyond question that, in deciding whether or not to grant the fiat, my right hon. and learned Friend must have regard to what the state of the law is at the time of the application. It will often occur that legislation is passed by Parliament which has an effect upon the rights and liabilities of parties to litigation which is current during the course of a Bill. There is no rule of parliamentary procedure which precludes Parliament from legislating on matters which happen to be before the court, and it would be a very extraordinary situation if there were.
§ Sir S. Summersis the hon. and learned Gentleman denying any distinction between matters which may be before the court on the one hand and matters affecting a Government body which may be before the court on the other?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIn principle there is not a distinction to be drawn between these two, so I would think. It was suggested in the course of the debate that it would be wrong to pay too much attention to the circumstance that only a few days had passed between the publication of the Transport Bill and the application for the grant of the fiat. I 1022 do not want to place undue emphasis upon the short passage of time that applied in that instance.
Correspondence had been in progress over a considerable period between the parties who became relators in the action and the Department. So much time had been allowed to elapse that the belief was held that there was not an intention to proceed with the action when the date of the publication of the Bill was reached. Be that as it may, I do not think that the circumstance that this had been a long-outstanding issue between the relators and the Department makes any difference whatsoever on the matter of principle. It was still a perfectly clear case of Parliament taking to itself the right, which must always be Parliament's, to legislate in a matter that is subject to current litigation. If my right hon. and learned Friend took the special precaution of pointing out to the relators that if they went on with this action they might well be throwing good money after bad and behaving contrary to their interests, he acted, as I think the House will agree, absolutely correctly and perfectly fairly. It was only when that treatment of the matter was rejected that he granted his fiat, as he was bound to do having regard to the state of the law at the time the application was made.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that on a true view of this matter regard should be had to the point that the basis of this action had been established in many years past in a history of breach of statutory duty by the Waterways Board. I take note of that point. I give it such fair consideration as I can, and I am bound to say that I do not think that that matter can be regarded as altering the principle. I trust that that is a fair comment.
If he takes the view that the more substantial the merits of the action the less desirable it is to put an end to relator proceedings, I hope that he will give full weight to certain counter considerations, including the line of defence which would be available if the action were to proceed based upon the effect of Section 64 of the 1962 Transport Act, which put into abeyance rights which had previously existed for parties who 1023 sought to get the statutory authorities to perform their duties. This has a strong bearing on the merits of the action. It is not by itself conclusive but should be borne in mind in the general context of the need for fairness and reasonable treatment of litigants. I trust that the House will, therefore, recognise that there is, on a reasonable view no injustice done if Parliament legislates in a fashion fatal to the relator action referred to in the Amendment.
As to the two canals having a special position, surely that fact has been recognised by the Minister of State, because the Ministry proposes that the Waterways Board will require Ministerial consent before any action is taken to change the character and position of these two canals. I hope that the House will think, therefore, that it is appropriate to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerThe hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that he intended leaving the dusty atmosphere of legal chambers, but we very quickly returned to them and have spent some time there. All those who have heard this debate will be very disappointed that the final Government speech was an attempt to deal in some depth with the legal point without recognising the very real case made by hon. Members on both sides and of all parties. There is no doubt that, if there were a free vote on the Amendment, the Government would be devastatingly defeated.
All speakers in the debate—the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Paul B. Rose) and High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), who have a particular constituency interest, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who has detailed knowledge of inland waterways, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), whose detailed knowledge is well-known, the hon. Member for Cheadle—have combined to condemn the Government's attitude to this problem.
I find it beyond comprehension that a Government who continue to say that they want to improve the amenities of the waterways should pursue a policy which will ruin the use of 110 miles of waterways in an area close to a major 1024 conurbation. Not only are they willing to do that, but they are introducing legislation to prevent a legal action from taking place which was certainly commenced before the Bill was published.
I am surprised that the Solicitor-General takes that attitude because the Lord Chancellor made it clear that he was aware that the preparations for this action were taking place and that local authorities had passed resolutions approving the action. When the Bill was published, that fact was well know publicly. I am surprised that the Government should seek to prevent that legal action from taking place. As a result they will prevent many hundreds of thousands of people in a major conurbation from enjoying the use of that waterway.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am sure that the hon. Member wishes to be fair and accurate. It is simply not the case that this action was commenced before the publication of the Bill, and it is very important to have that clear. By inadvertence the hon. Member stated the contrary. The distinction between the commencement of an action and the preparation of an action is one which the House must be asked to recognise.
§ Mr. WalkerThe reaction of both sides of the House treats the Solicitor-General's words with the contempt which they deserve. When challenged on the point that local authorities had passed resolutions to commence this action, the Lord Chancellor said,
I quite accept that; there was a lot going on behind the scenes between the parties and their solicitors, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086.]I repeat the phrase "and so on".It was well known to the Government and to the public that this action was taking place. The Government have acted in a very shoddy manner and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join in voting against them.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division.
1025§ Mr. Grant-Ferris (seated and covered)On a point of order. Could you inform the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the Amendment has been carried or whether a Division is taking place? There seems to be some confusion.
§ Mr. Peter Walker (seated and covered)Further to that point of order. Nobody said "Aye". How can there be a Division?
§ Mr. John Ellis (Bristol, North-West) (seated and covered)Further to that point of order. I shouted "Aye".
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Member has confirmed what I said. Not very many shouted "Aye", but there were some who did, and that is why I ordered the Lobbies to be cleared.
§ The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 212.
1029| Division No. 305.] | AYES | [10.42 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Dobson, Ray | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Albu, Austen | Doig, Peter | Lawson, George |
| Alldritt, Walter | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) |
| Allen, Scholefield | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) |
| Anderson, Donald | Eadie, Alex | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Archer, Peter | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Ellis, John | Lipton, Marcus |
| Ashley, Jack | English, Michael | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Ensor, David | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Barnes, Michael | Faulds, Andrew | McCann, John |
| Barnett, Joel | Fernyhough, E. | MacDermot, Niall |
| Baxter, William | Finch, Harold | Macdonald, A. H. |
| Beaney, Alan | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | McGuire, Michael |
| Bence, Cyril | Ford, Ben | McKay, Mrs. Margaret |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Forrester, John | Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien) |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Mackie, John |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Freeson, Reginald | Maclennan, Robert |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Gardner, Tony | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Ginsburg, David | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Boston, Terence | Gourlay, Harry | MacPherson, Malcolm |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) |
| Boyden, James | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Gregory, Arnold | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Bradley, Tom | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside) | Manuel, Archie |
| Brooks, Edwin | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Mapp, Charles |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Hamling, William | Maxwell, Robert |
| Buchan, Norman | Harper, Joseph | Mayhew, Christopher |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Millan, Bruce |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Haseldine, Norman | Miller, Dr. M. S. |
| Cant, R. B. | Hattersley, Roy | Milne, Edward (Blyth) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hazell, Bert | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Heffer, Eric S. | Molloy, William |
| Chapman, Donald | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Coe, Denis | Hilton, W. S. | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Coleman, Donald | Hobden, Dennis | Moyle, Roland |
| Concannon, J. D. | Hooley, Frank | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Horner, John | Neal, Harold |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Norwood, Christopher |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Ogden, Eric |
| Cronin, John | Howie, W. | O'Malley, Brian |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Orbach, Maurice |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Orme, Stanley |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Oswald, Thomas |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Hunter, Adam | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
| Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Hynd, John | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Paget, R. T. |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Palmer, Arthur |
| Davits, Harold (Leek) | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W. | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Dell, Edmund | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Dempsey, James | Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Dewar, Donald | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda West) | Pentland, Norman |
| Dickens, James | Kelley, Richard | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Silverman, Julius | Wellbeloved, James |
| Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) | Skeffington, Arthur | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Slater, Joseph | Whitlock, William |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Small, William | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Probert, Arthur | Spriggs, Leslie | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Rankin, John | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Rees, Merlyn | Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy | Swingler, Stephen | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Taverne, Dick | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Robertson, John (Paisley) | Thornton, Ernest | Wilson. Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as) | Tinn, James | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Tomney, Frank | Winnick, David |
| Roebuck, Roy | Urwin, T. W. | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | Woof, Robert |
| Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | Yates, Victor |
| Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Wallace George | |
| Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) | Watkins, David (Consett) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) | Mr. McBride and |
| Short Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.) | Weitzman, David | Mr. Fitch |
| Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | ||
| NOES | ||
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fortescue, Tim | MacArthur, Ian |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Foster, Sir John | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Astor, John | Calbraith, Hn. T. G. | Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Gibson-Watt, David | McMaster, Stanley |
| Awdry, Daniel | Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan | Maddan, Martin |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Maginnis, John E. |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Marten, Neil |
| Balniel, Lord | Glyn, Sir Richard | Maude, Angus |
| Batsford, Brian | Goodhart, Philip | Mawby, Ray |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Goodhew, Victor | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Bell, Ronald | Gower, Raymond | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Grant-Ferris, R. | Mills, Peter (Torrington) |
| Bessell, Peter | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Biffen, John | Gurden, Harold | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Monro, Hector |
| Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) | More, Jasper |
| Blaker, Peter | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Murton, Oscar |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Braine, Bernard | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Neave, Airey |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Nicholls, Sir Harmer |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Hastings, Stephen | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hawkins, Paul | Nott, John |
| Bryan, Paul | Hay, John | Onslow, Cranley |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Heseltine, Michael | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Burden, F. A. | Higgins, Terence L. | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Hill, J. E. B. | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Percival, Ian |
| Carlisle Mark | Holland, Philip | Peyton, John |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hooson, Emlyn | Pounder, Rafton |
| Clark, Henry | Hordern, Peter | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Clegg, Walter | Hornby, Richard | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Cooke, Robert | Hunt, John | Pym, Francis |
| Cooper-Key Sir Neill | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Quennell, Miss J. M, |
| Cordle, John | Iremonger, T. L. | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Costain, A. P. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Crouch, David | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Crowder, F. P. | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jopling, Michael | Royle, Anthony |
| Dance, James | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Dean, Paul | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Sharples, Richard |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Kershaw, Anthony | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Silvester, Frederick |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Kitson, Timothy | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Doughty, Charles | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Lambton, Viscount | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Lancaster Col., C. G. | Speed, Keith |
| Eden, Sir John | Lane, David | Stainton, Keith |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Emery, Peter | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Eyre, Reginald | Longden, Gilbert | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Farr, John | Loveys, W. H. | Tapsell, Peter |
| Fisher, Nigel | Lubbock, Eric | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Teeling, Sir William | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Temple, John M. | Wall, Patrick | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Walters, Dennis | Worsley, Marcus |
| Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy | Ward, Dame Irene | Wright, Esmond |
| Tilney, John | Weatherill, Bernard | Wylie, N. R. |
| Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. | Webster, David | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| van Straubenzee W. R. | Wells, John (Maidstone) | Vounger, Hn. George |
| Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William | |
| Vickers, Dame Joan | Williams, Donald (Dudley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Waddington, David | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) | Mr. R. W. Elliott and |
| Walker, Peter (Worcetser) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. | Mr. Anthony Grant |
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]