HC Deb 11 June 1969 vol 784 cc1542-57

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Wylie

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 19, at end insert: (3) In the exercise of their functions under this section, where any part of their district includes the countryside, as defined in section 2(1) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 a local planning authority shall consult with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. This short Amendment to Clause 1 seeks to write in a statutory obligation on the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions under Clause 1 to consult in certain circumstances with the Countryside Commission of Scotland. The obligation is confined to the circumstances set out in the new subsection and arises only where some part or any part of the local planning authority district includes countryside as defined in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, 1967.

During the Committee stage an Amendment was put down on similar lines which sought to impose the obligation on the Secretary of State. Criticism was rightly made that if one started to pick out one statutory body for special treatment one would have to consider the reaction and the views of other statutory bodies which may have an interest in planning and to which reference could also be made.

The Countryside Commission for Scotland is in a unique position. It is charged by the 1967 Act with a positive duty to advise and guide the local planning authority, and indeed the Secretary of State, on planning matters when a reference is made to an authority. Section 8 (1) of the 1967 Act provides: The Commission may, and if so requested by the Secretary of State or any local planning authority shall, advise the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the authority in relation of any matter arising under he Planning Acts which affects land in the countryside". Although we accept that there are other bodies with planning interests—some would say far too many bodies, when one remembers that the Land Commission has planning functions and that many other bodies touch on planning matters—we nonetheless feel that the Countryside Commission for Scotland is in a highly specialised position. The criticism that there may be other bodies which should equally be consulted is met by the terms of this Amendment. They restrict the obligation to consult only to those cases where a district involves or includes "countryside" as defined in the Act.

It appears to be right in principle that at the formative stage of the structure plan and when structure planning proposals are put forward there should be the maximum consultation with the Countryside Commission. If a local planning authority has no land designated as "countryside" in the terms of the 1967 Act, there is no obligation to consult and indeed no need to consult. But where the two overlap, where there is a countryside area within the boundaries of a local authority, it is only common sense that at the formative stage of their proposals an authority should consult with the Countryside Commission.

The Minister may say that the local planning authority already has power in this respect, and indeed such a power is contained in Section 8(1) of the 1967 Act. But it is only a permissive power. The local authority can go to the Countryside Commission if it wishes, but it has no obligation to do so. Likewise, it can be said that the Countryside Commission has permissive powers in Section 8(1) to give advice to any planning authority. But they may or may not do so.

In such a situation where one is reconstituting, indeed restructuring, the whole planning process in Scotland, where one is drawing a distinction between the overall structure plan and the local plan and where there is in existence a statutory body with special planning functions to perform, it is only logical that there should be a statutory duty for the local authority to consult with that statutory body in those special circumstances, namely where an area includes "countryside" as defined in the 1967 Act.

That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. It simply adds a short subsection to Clause 1. It makes provision for what one would hope would be carried out in any case. One would expect local authorities to co-operate with the Countryside Commission and vice versa. But since the need for that consultation and co-operation will be obvious and clear at the formative stage of the local planning authorities proposals, it is only right that the necessity for consultation should be recognised and should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Monro

If the Minister was able to accept new Clause 4, he will certainly be able to accept Amendment No. 1. It is much more likely to have a practical influence on planning in Scotland than the new Clause, on which he changed his mind at the ninety-ninth moment.

Those of us who helped with the Countryside Commission and who have been connected with this planning Bill will appreciate that in many spheres they are complementary. If the Countryside Commission is to play the part in the planning of Scotland that it ought to play, it must be more closely involved with the local planning committees. This Amendment will bring to the notice of the planning committees each time they deal with a matter which may affect the countryside their duties and obligations about possible effects on the Countryside Commission.

Those of us who were in Scotland last week had the opportunity to visit the forestry exhibition held outside Edinburgh. We were able to visit the exhibition tent of the Countryside Commission which was next door to that of the English Countryside Commission. It was possible to draw certain conclusions from the different displays and to evaluate the work of both Commissions. These ideas should be brought home to county and burgh planning committees, and then they can work in much closer co-operation.

A great deal of talk has gone on in the last few years about increasing recreation opportunities, particularly in the Highlands. In many cases we have been delighted at the progress which has been made. But if the Countryside Commission is to play its part in developing recreation facilities in conjunction with local authorities, they must get together more frequently than they do at the moment and, in the same way, the Commission must have the extra opportunity statutorily of coming into consultation with the local authorities at an early date.

This is an important Amendment. We discussed it in Committee, and I thought that we had influenced the Minister. Obviously, we have not yet done so. It is not a complicated addition to the Bill, but it could have far reaching effects. Every move made by a local authority in the countryside in providing facilities for recreation and amenity and every move by the Countryside Commission in the same two spheres, must go hand in hand. While the two bodies will consult on a good many occasions, we want to make certain that they consult.

Earl of Dalkeith

I want to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), because this is a good and necessary Amendment. Perhaps I might refer to a specific case in which it could be used to advantage. In the Pentlands there is a firing range which belongs to the Ministry of Defence. If this Amendment were made, it would be necessary for the local authority to consult the Countryside Commission before granting any form of planning permission for changes to be made on the firing range. That could be a valuable safeguard for the amenities of the City of Edinburgh.

Having said that, there is one point about the Amendment which worries me. It is that if all local authorities are to indulge in a large number of consultations with the Commission, will the Commission be able to cope with the vast volume of work which will be put on its plate without quadrupling its staff?

With that in mind, perhaps I might move a manuscript Amendment to change the words "consult with" in line 3 of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to "notify". That would meet the point adequately. Providing that the Commission was notified of planning changes, it could make representations to the local authority concerned if it did not like any feature of the proposed changes.

I do not quite know how to set about moving a manuscript Amendment—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The noble Earl must not try.

Earl of Dalkeith

Having made that suggestion, perhaps the Minister might like to move the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I rise to support what seems to be a sensible Amendment. I recall the discussions which the Minister of State and I had when we considered the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. The general spirit which motivated both sides was to give the Countryside Commission the authority to supervise development in the countryside. Both sides were anxious that the Commission should really work.

7.45 p.m.

I imagine that in the majority of cases a planning officer would have the sense to consult with the Commission if any development was to take place in the countryside. I suppose that we have one of the best planning officers in Scotland at present in East Lothian, where a great deal of work is being carried out along the coastline. In those cases, I know that the Commission is being consulted, and a splendid job is being done. But, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) often pointed out to us in the past, personnel, Ministers and officials change. We may not always have a top-notch planning officer in East Lothian. The time may come when we have a planning officer who is not so imbued with the need to consult with the Commission, and it is very easy with a small amount of thoughtlessness to do great damage of a permanent nature to the countryside.

I hope that the Minister of State will accept the Amendment. I did not serve on the Committee and hear any of the previous arguments, but the Amendment strikes me as being a very good one in that it will go a long way to keeping the country beautiful in the future. It would have the added advantage of giving the Commission what it is important to give it, and that is status as the authority concerned with development in Scotland's countryside.

Mr. MacArthur

I have some sympathy with the point made by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). If the local planning authorities were to carry through properly the process of consultation which this Amendment requires of them, the load of work on the Countryside Commission might become burdensome. There might be anxiety in the minds of local planning authorities to carry out the consultation in person, because it would give them a good excuse to come to Perth, where, happily, the Commission has its headquarters.

Perhaps there is something to be said for asking the Minister to consider proposing a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment and, in addition, a consequential Amendment to Schedule 2 setting out the Amendments to other legislation. The word "consult" and a requirement to consult in various directions appears frequently in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, 1967. If there is any justification for using the word "notify" instead of "consult with" in this Amendment, there is an equally strong reason for easing the responsibility of the Commission in the 1967 Act by making similar changes in that Act. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is very good at drafting manuscript Amendments, and, if that presents the Minister with any difficulty, perhaps he and I can retire for a few moments in order to produce some suitable wording.

I have referred to the constant references to consultation in the 1967 Act, and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am now being quite serious. There is a constant requirement throughout the Act for the Commission to engage in consultation. For example, in the general duties placed on the Commission in Section 3, it is charged with the duty of keeping under review … all matters relating to the provision development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside, the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty and amenity, and the need to secure public access to the countryside … These are all desirable objectives. It is right that the Countryside Commission should be charged with this duty, but the relevant subsection places the further requirement on it that, in the course of keeping all these important matters under review, it should consult with such local planning authorities and other bodies as have an interest in these matters. There is a requirement on the Commission to consult.

Similarly, if a local planning authority is assessing the need for a country park, a requirement is placed on the Commission in Section 3 to consult with local planning authorities in this regard.

Again, in Section 5 there is a requirement for the Commission to consult with local planning authorities in certain fairly general circumstances. There are other requirements of that kind, but it is always for the Commission to take the initiative to consult with the local planning authority.

By contrast, when we come to certain specific powers of local authorities under Part IV of the 1967 Act, we find that there are certain circumstances in which the local planning authority is charged with the duty to consult with the Commission. It is charged with the same duty that is sought in the Amendment. For example, when a local planning authority is assessing the need for a country park, it is required by Section 48(2) to consult with the Commission from time to time.

In Section 54 of the Act, which deals with the making of byelaws by a local authority, there is a requirement on the local authority to consult with the Commission. This requirement of consultation by the local authority seems to be restricted to specific occasions and circumstances, such as the assessment of the need for a country park or the creation of a new byelaw. There is not the same general requirement on the local planning authority to consult with the Countryside Commission as there is on the Countryside Commission earlier in the 1967 Act to consult with local planning authorities.

I notice that Clause 1 requires a local planning authority to consult with other neighbouring authorities. Therefore, when a local planning authority is carrying out the duties laid on it, quite properly, in Clause 1 in connection with a major survey and the like, it is required to consult with neighbouring authorities. This makes sense, because if they are engaged, as they are required to be, in a large local survey, it is sensible to consult with the neighbouring local planning authority which is engaged in a similar survey because there will be an overlapping interest. But there is no requirement on the local planning authority in this circumstance to consult with the Countryside Commission. It seems that the consultation requirements of the 1967 Act and the Bill run primarily in one direction. There is an obligation on the Countryside Commission in the 1967 Act to consult with local planning authorities, but only in specific circumstances—the assessment of the need for a country park, the creation of new bye-laws and so on—is there any requirement in the 1967 Act for the local planning authorities to take the initiative and consult with the Commission.

I applaud what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). It makes complete sense for the local planning authority to be required to consult or, if the House feels that that is too involved a word, to notify the Countryside Commission about its progress and intentions under the survey requirement in Clause 1.

We all share a concern and regard for the proper and harmonious development of the countryside. We all want to see access to the countryside improved and enjoyed by more people. If that is to happen, particularly with the encroachments which are constantly being made into the countryside, it is right that local planning authorities, which are often the trigger point of development of this kind, should be required to consult the Commission as a further protection for the townsman and the countryman who have a great interest and affection for what is a shrinking asset in this country.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) for his lengthy but quite proper references to all the preceding legislation. Indeed, it makes my case that there is already in statute a great responsibility imposed on the Countryside Commission to advise the Secretary of State, when requested, and, just as important, to give advice on anything that it thinks appropriate.

Specific reference has been made to the proposal to expand the area used by the Army in the Pentland Hills. The hon. Gentleman will know—it may be that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has already told him—that this matter has been referred to the Commission.

Administrative arrangements exist within the Department which secure that any matter of real concern to the Commission—even matters of much less importance than those mentioned in the Amendment or in the speeches we have heard—can be brought to its notice. We must always remember that in this relationship between the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission there is another party—the Scottish Office. After all, the relationship between the local planning authority and the Scottish Office is clearly defined in statute and is important.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who led for the Opposition and assisted me greatly in getting the Countryside Bill through Committee, knows that this three-party relationship is very important, because they inter-act on each other. Therefore, we must not forget that in explaining the position. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not forget the position of other bodies concerned with planning. The hon. and learned Member for Pentlands referred to many bodies, some involved in planning, who should be considered here.

Mr. MacArthur

I should like to ask the Minister a brief question about an earlier point. Was the firing range matter referred to the Commission because of a statutory requirement that it should be so referred, or was it referred to the Commission for its advice?

Dr. Mabon

It was raised because we were concerned about it. The hon. and learned Member for Pentlands raised this one morning in Committee in a very astute way on a subject we were then debating not concerning the Pentland Hills. I took action that morning and we have since referred it to the Commission. It is not necessary to have references in statute to do these things. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in regulations?"] The House must not forget that the regulations which flow from Acts are oft-times in practice as important in their practical effect as the very Act itself. I cannot remember the exact words used by the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands in the preceding debate, but they are there and they are good words to use. These regulations must not be dismissed as minor matters which do not have much effect. These regulations are important.

It is right and proper that we should look at the question of notification. Though the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) may have meant it in a jocular way, I take the point that notification is important, and it may be that "notify" is a better word than "consult" in the Amendment. I should like to take that point into consideration when making regulations under Clause 13(1). We have to have a more rational system of regulations under Clause 13(1). There are other bodies.

The hon. and learned Member mentioned the Land Commission, and I will not weary the House with a long list of statutory or voluntary bodies which have rights in these matters, but they have some concern in this. The House would not want to give the impression that the Countryside Commission is the only one. That is the effect of the Amendment and, while I accept the argument of speciality, other people have special interests as well. We should not accept the Amendment, but should accept the importance of its meaning when it comes to regulations under Clause 13(1).

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie

Is not the hon. Gentleman's example of the Pentlands Firing Range a case in point? There has been no proper consultation between the corporation as planning authority and the Countryside Commission. If we were at the stage of surveys for structure plans under this legislation, the Amendment would require that consultation, which is the very point which we are trying to make.

Dr. Mabon

But we can do this even more successfully than the Amendment would do, when we have read the Skeffington Report and seen its effect on public participation and how regulations should be made. Clause 13(1) is absolutely crucial and if, out of it, there do not come rational and comprehensive and effective regulations, the Bill will not succeed. We all agree that public participation must be made better. That is why we should not identify specific bodies or ask them to act in specific ways. Regulations should be comprehensive and rational.

I do not want the Amendment to be accepted, because I prefer that we do the matter comprehensively and rationally, covering everybody—not necessarily distinguishing between bodies in Statute but leaving it to regulations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Many of us are disappointed that the Minister has merely repeated his arguments in Committee and has adduced nothing new. He has confirmed our view that the Amendment is necessary. What worries me is that so much in the Bill appears to be left to regulation. In planning matters, many things should be left to regulation, but, on this Bill, the Minister uses that excuse because we should wait either for the Skeffington Report or for the reorganisation of local government. This all makes us realise that perhaps the Bill has been brought forward at the wrong time and that far too much will be left to ministerial discretion by Order, merely because other things have not been done first.

That is a slightly wider argument, but we are concerned that the Minister should continually use this excuse for these reasons. That is one of our main reasons for believing that, where we can tie matters down specifically, this should be done; that is one of the purposes of the Amendment. I agree also with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about Pent-lands firing range, which the Minister quoted as an example of the Countryside Commission being consulted. If the consultation had taken place before this had become a real issue—I know something of it—the public concern might never have reached its present height. It is because of this concern that we should make certain of consultation as early as possible.

After all, in subsection (4) an obligation is laid on the planning authority to consult; there is nothing between us on this. In the light of what is happening with the Countryside Commission, we believe that this obligation should be specific about that body. The hon. Gentleman argued that it is wrong to write in this one body, when others have planning functions. But no other bodies have quite the same degree of special planning functions as the Countryside Commission.

I should like to give an example from my own experience. Some years ago, I was concerned with a new South of Scotland Electricity Board power line, with high tension lines and towers, going right across from Wishaw to the South of Edinburgh. I thought that, instead of following the ridges, it should have been camouflaged against the hills. When I put the point of view to a helpful way-leave officer from the Board, he said, with great innocence and an assurance that he would persuade me completely, "It is all right. This has all been vetted by Lady MacGregor, of the Royal Fine Art Commission." I knew perfectly well that Lady MacGregor and the Commission had never seen this line, but had only passed the design of the pylon towers to carry it.

This illustrates how excuses like this about other bodies are used to justify such lines as this across the country. Therefore, I do not give way to the argument that other bodies, like the Royal Fine Art Commission, have such specific planning functions as the Countryside Commission. After all, if we did not believe that the Countryside Commission had special planning functions, we should never have supported its establishment in the first place. It is because of these special functions that the Commission was set up. We should give it a job to do.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a very good case for mentioning the Royal Fine Art Commission in relation to Edinburgh and in dealing with developments which are restricted, certainly in the countryside?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The Amendment deals specifically with the Countryside Commission and we are asking only that the obligation should be to consult on matters relating to the countryside. The passing of the Countryside Act demonstrates the will on both sides to acknowledge the great importance of the countryside; this is why we believe that this obligation should be written in. If we set up these statutory bodies, in Scotland or elsewhere, we should give them a job to do.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, we must give these bodies status, and if we want to attract the right kind of people to serve on them and to serve Scotland in the right way we must make sure that they are given a job to do. One of the real jobs that they can do is in relation to planning functions. If local planning authorities are not obliged to consult them, that will belittle the task which these bodies have to do.

We believe that it is important to write into the Bill this question of consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said—and I do not intend to go over the points that he made—that in view of increasing urbanisation, with growing industrial development, and because of the increase in population, the preservation of the countryside for recreation is becoming more and more important. This is another reason why we believe that this provision should be written into the Bill.

Industrial development on the Clyde estuary is of great importance. In that area the countryside has high value, and the provision of recreational facilities is extremely important. We all support industrial development in that part of Scotland, but it is vital that that development is integrated with other interests such as the countryside and the provision of recreational facilities.

We know that surveys and structure plans are submitted to the Secretary of State, and that he may consult the Countryside Commission about them, but we believe that it will be much quicker—and in this Bill we are trying to speed up the planning processes—if before the plans and surveys are submitted, as many as possible of the different considerations and consultations are out of the way so that when the Secretary of State receives the plans and the surveys there is a large measure of agreement between the different bodies concerned about the various aspects involved.

We believe that if there is consultation between the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission many of the difficulties which may arise in the early stages will have been resolved and agreement reached before the plans are submitted to the Secretary of State for his

consideration. This is one way in which the planning process can be speeded up.

Because of the importance of the countryside and of the Countryside Commission and the planning functions which we have given it, and also because we want to speed up the planning process in Scotland, we believe that it is necessary to make this Amendment. The Government have not seen fit to accept it, and I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 167.

Division No. 247.] AYES [8.14 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Glover, Sir Douglas Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Astor, John Grant-Ferris, R. Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gresham Cooke, R. Nott, John
Awdry, Daniel Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Gurden, Harold Osborn, John (Hallam)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bell, Ronald Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Harris, Reader (Heston) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Harvie Anderson, Miss Percival, Ian
Biffen, John Hawkins, Paul Pike, Miss Mervyn
Biggs-Davison, John Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel rounder, Rafton
Blaker, Peter Hiley, Joseph Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hill, J. E. B. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hordern, Peter Royle, Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hutchison, Michael Clark Scott, Nicholas
Bryan, Paul Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Scott-Hopkins, James
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bullus, Sir Eric Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead) Stainton, Keith
Chataway, Christopher Jopling, Michael Stodart, Anthony
Clegg, Walter Kershaw, Anthony Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Cooke, Robert Kimball, Marcus Summers, Sir Spencer
Costain, A. P. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crouch, David Kitson, Timothy Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Currie, G. B. H. Lane, David Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Waddington, David
Dance, James Lubbock, Eric Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) McAdden, Sir Stephen Walters, Dennis
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry MacArthur, Ian Ward, Dame Irene
Dean, Paul McMaster, Stanley Wiggin, A. W.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maude, Angus Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Mawby, Ray Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Errington, Sir Eric Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wylie, N. R.
Farr, John Monro, Hector Younger, Hn. George
Fisher, Nigel Montgomery, Fergus TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles More, Jasper Mr. Anthony Grant and
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Anderson, Donald Bidwell, Sydney Cant, R. B.
Archer, Peter Blackburn, F. Chapman, Donald
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Blenkinsop, Arthur Coe, Denis
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Boardman, H. (Leigh) Coleman, Donald
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Booth, Albert Concannon, J. D.
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bray, Dr. Jeremy Dalyell, Tam
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Barnes, Michael Buchan, Norman Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Barnett, Joel Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Bence, Cyril Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Delargy, Hugh Howie, W. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Dewar, Donald Hoy, James Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Neal, Harold
Dickens, James Hughes, Roy (Newport) Ogden, Eric
Dobson, Ray Hunter, Adam Orbach, Maurice
Doig, Peter Hynd, John Orme, Stanley
Driberg, Tom Janner, Sir Barnett Oswald, Thomas
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Eadie, Alex Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Park, Trevor
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ellis, John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
English, Michael Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Ennals, David Judd, Frank Pentland, Norman
Ensor, David Kelley, Richard Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Kerr, Rusell (Feltham) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Lawson, George Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Fernyhough, E. Lestor, Miss Joan Probert, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Rankin, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Loughlin, Charles Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Foley, Maurice Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Ryan, John
Forrester, John Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sheldon, Robert
Fraser, John (Norwood) McCann, John Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Freeson, Reginald MacDermot, Niall Slater, Joseph
Galpern, Sir Myer Macdonald, A. H. Small, William
Gardner, Tony McGuire, Michael Snow, Julian
Ginsburg, David McKay, Mrs. Margaret Spriggs, Leslie
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gregory, Arnold Mackie, John Taverne, Dick
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mackintosh, John P. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Maclennan, Robert Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) MacPherson, Malcolm Wallace, George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Watkins, David (Consett)
Hamling, William Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Harper, Joseph Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wilkins, W. A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mapp, Charles Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hazell, Bert Marks, Kenneth Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Heffer, Eric S. Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hooley, Frank Mendelson, John Woof, Robert
Horner, John Millan, Bruce TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Miller, Dr. M. S. Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Neil McBride.
Back to
Forward to