HC Deb 17 March 1969 vol 780 cc115-44

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

At the beginning of this first of our two debates on Private Business, may I announce that I have not selected, for the debate on the Brighton Corporation Bill, the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)— That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months. nor, for the debate on the York Corporation Bill, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)— That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months. This will not limit the debate in any way.

Further, I have not selected the Instruction in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North— That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the Notice put on the cliff face by Brighton Borough Council at the instance of the Nature Conservancy as a site of special scientific interest under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and to ensure that no new road authorised by the Bill interferes with or restricts public access to the cliffs or the undercliff walk or the right which the public have hitherto enjoyed upon the undercliff walk or the adjacent foreshore and beaches. The points which are made in that Instruction may be argued by the hon. and learned Member or anyone else as reasons for opposing the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden (Brighton, Kemptown)

I support the Second Reading of the Bill, and, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will allow some wide-ranging debate on the other issues, it will be pertinent to explain why the Bill is before us.

I want to say firmly at once that it is not in order to provide a marina at Brighton, just in case the issues get blurred during the debate. The question of the marina was decided over a year ago, when the Brighton Marina Act, 1968, was approved by both Houses of Parliament after it had been considered by a Select Committee. But it would be as well to recall that, even before those events, the Minister of Housing, in 1966, approved the provision of a marina after a nine-day public local hearing into the—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not do what he said that he would not do. We are not discussing the Brighton Marina Act now. That has already been passed.

Mr. Hobden

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have made the very point that I was trying to make. I was not saying that disrespectfully, but only to dispel the misconceptions which have arisen.

We are concerned in this Bill with the question of adequate road facilities to fit in with the marina scheme. The Minister himself, when the Bill was being discussed, insisted that the additional road facilities should be provided in connection with the project. Section 41 of the Brighton Marina Act insists that they should be provided. The forward planning of the Brighton Corporation has provided for a road system in this area by about 1980, so such a system would be necessary whether the marina had been built or not. Although the marina has not made it necessary, it is using the local authority's original plans.

But the question arose in the original Brighton Marina Act of who should be involved in the powers of compulsory acquisition of the property which was necessary for the provision of access roads. This is what our argument is all about. The marina company itself had sought these powers, but the Select Committee in 1968 struck them out because it felt that a commercial enterprise should not be granted compulsory powers. But the Committee added that it would have no objections if Brighton Corporation sought similar powers. Therefore, the Bill seeks those powers, which would be exerciseable by Brighton Corporation and not by the Brighton Marina Company. This is not an unusual exercise, because a great deal of commercial development takes place for which highways are provided by the appropriate highways authorities: it has happened before in Brighton.

The Bill is being used in two ways by opponents of the scheme to obstruct the marina project itself. I am not sure whether, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am in order in mentioning this, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has been foremost in his obstruction of and opposition to the marina. We know that hon. Members, in pursuance of their Parliamentary duties, are permitted to obstruct Private Bills, but it is a principle which should be used with responsibility and it is about time that my hon. and learned Friend stated his interest in this matter.

In addition, by means of the Order Paper, my hon. and learned Friend has regaled us with some high-sounding claims in Motion No. 112, which has a bearing or this— That this House is of opinion that British beaches and foreshores are, and should remain, public property to which the public have, and should continue to have, free access at all times and that those sections of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Brighton Marina Act 1968 which give local planning authorities power to interfere with, impede or diminish in any way these public rights, should be amended forthwith in such a way as to preserve intact and completely those public rights. My hon and learned Friend purports to claim concern for the coastlines and foreshores of this country, as if the rest of us who favour the marina and all that goes with it are in favour of despoiling our national heritage, but, as I said on Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Act, we are not destroying a heritage but creating one. Some idea of how the signatories of that Motion have been misled—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, we are not debating that Motion.

Mr. Hobden

I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but hon. Members will know the position to which I refer. I do not know whether other speakers will raise this matter, but this is part of the background which I feared could be used to obstruct this scheme.

If one examined public opinion in Brighton an the tortured history of the marina project, one could not deny that it has been the essence of a democratic progression which culminated in the biggest town poll which this country has ever known, when, after all the discussions and arguments, the proposals set out in the Bill were overwhelmingly supported by the people of Brighton by a majority of almost two to one. In spite of that, the opponents still continue to blur the issue in what I regard as a completely unreasonable manner.

I am uncertain of how wide-ranging I might have been allowed to be in dealing with this issue, but one thing which all hon. Members have been told is that there would be compulsory purchase by the Corporation of houses, businesses and a graveyard to assist commercial development. This is completely untrue. What we are trying to do is get this road scheme, at the Minister's behest; this is not an unusual problem in town planning. There are 22 houses affected in this area, and the owners of only seven have petitioned against the Bill. Those objections are based on concern to get a proper price for their properties if they are compulsorily acquired, and no one would condemn that. But no business owners have petitioned, and a completely amicable agreement has been reached with the Religious Society of Friends, whose burial ground is affected.

We are then informed that the proposed road works are in direct conflict with Ministry of Transport requirements; yet the proposals before the House have been designed in consultation with and to the approval of the Ministry. Many other arguments have been used about the rate income.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point of compulsory purchase, has he any idea what the Corporation intends to pay in respect of compulsory purchase? Will he give an undertaking that the Corporation will not take over property until a compulsory purchase price has been agreed and paid?

Mr. Hobden

It depends on what arises from the Bill and what instruction, if any, is given by the Committee when it discusses the issue. But, as far as I am aware, the local authority will be dealing with this on the normal basis laid down by statute. I am not in a position to give any undertaking one way or the other but in another capacity, in which I sit on Brighton Town Council, I can tell the hon. Member that he may take it for granted that some of us are concerned about people in private residences and intend to do what we can to protect their interests.

There were many arguments about the rates coming in and whether Brighton would lose money as a result of this project, but I think it can be shown that that is quite untrue and that, in fact, Brighton will benefit to a large extent after a certain time. It will produce a rate income of about £200,000 a year, a not inconsiderable sum going into the rate fund.

It seems odd that the people opposing a Bill to provide adequate roads say in the same breath that there will be traffic hazards. In my opinion they cannot have their cake and eat it. I will not go into all the other reasons, because hon. Members know all the issues involved by now, for they have been hammered out in the Press and elsewhere.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the Preamble, in line 16, are given the two reasons for the need for these roads—increased traffic, on the one hand, and satisfactory access to the marina, on the other hand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like it to be thought that the marina is not one of the reasons why it is necessary to provide the road, although not the only reason.

Mr. Hobden

As I said earlier, this system will be required in any case by 1980 whether the marina ever comes to fruition or not. The marina has merely hastened the proposals. I do not want there to be any doubt about that.

I am the Member for the constituency in which the marina will be sited, and I can claim to be in touch with public opinion in Brighton on this issue. I want no hon. Member to be in any doubt that the people of Brighton have clearly demonstrated that they are in favour of the marina and the road scheme which makes it possible. Brighton means a lot to me. Its people mean a lot to me, as do its prosperity and its amenities.

For the reasons which I have given, I hope that the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

As, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we are discussing not the marina but the Bill concerned with the roads, I shall try to avoid using the magic word "marina", although it may be necessary to refer to it in passing.

I submit that this Bill should be either postponed or defeated, for reasons which I shall give. This morning I received a letter which strongly supported my submission that the Bill should be either postponed or defeated. It is a letter from the Ministry of Transport which reads You will, I think, recall that a Land Use Transportation Study is at present being carried out covering the whole Brighton area. The Department is of course in close touch with the Council on this study upon which a report is not expected until later this year. Until this has been completed and studied, no specific new road proposals will be put forward. The letter continues: There is, however, one exception. You will remember that the Brighton Marina Act passed last session required approval for further road works which might become necessary to accommodate the extra traffic generated by the proposed marina. The Council are, as you know, seeking approval to a proposed scheme in the Brighton Corporation Bill now before Parliament and it will be for Parliament to decide whether such proposals are acceptable. In view of that letter, Mr. Speaker, with respect, you may think it wise and proper to defer this debate. If not, I shall continue my speech.

Mr. Speaker

I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to continue his speech.

Mr. Hughes

For the convenience of the House I shall state seriatim why this roads Bill should not pass into law now or at any time. I shall then briefly state my reasons, which reasons are supported by thousands of Brighton electors at a public meeting in Brighton Dome and at the Town Hall, both specially summoned by Brighton Corporation to ascertain the citizens' views. In my submission the place selected for these new roads is un suitable, dangerous for cars and dangerous for people. The place should be, if at all, at Brighton Sailing Club, which is an old and respected sailing club with many members and with its own commodore. That place has approach roads—and lack of approach roads is one of the excuses for bringing this Bill forward. It has shops and hotels. It has bus connections with the railway station. It has a steep beach which has been used for generations for launching and landing boats and has been used by Brighton sailors for many years.

The place planned by the Bill has none of these things. The place planned by the Bill conflicts with the Buchanan Report on Traffic in Towns; it conflicts with Brighton's road plans, now under discussion; and it conflicts with Brighton's existing roads and topography. The plan of this Bill would take powers from Brighton Corporation and give powers to uncertain and changing companies and speculators whose identity is uncertain, as I shall show in a moment. The Bill would prejudice the statutory services to Brighton people of the South-Eastern Gas Board, which has petitioned against the Bill. The Bill would deprive many residents of their homes, in Rifle-butt Road and elsewhere, who have petitioned against the Bill. The Bill would prejudice long-established nursing homes, schools, blocks of flats, convalescent homes and private houses. It would spoil the beautiful greensward walk to Rotting-dean. It would truncate the famous undercliff sea walk. It would conflict with the Nature Conservancy's notice, put there by Brighton Corporation under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, stating how historic and important that site is.

If passed, the Bill would also permit ugly and dangerous tunnels where none exists today. It would create two fantastic motor roads, one down and one up, and as the distinguished architect or town planner, Mr. Gavin Scully, has indicated, it would provide a fantastic box of new roads, partly underground. It would spoil the regency beauty of Kemp-town, it would contradict the vote of 9,000 Brighton electors, and it would impose extravagant expense on Brighton citizens and ratepayers for the profit of speculators.

I shall now explain the very practical opposition of Brighton citizens. This unnecessary roads Bill relates not to a B road or roads but to a fantastic box of new roads through a thickly-populated area outside Brighton's town centre, thereby creating a new town to rival the centre of Brighton itself, far away from Brighton railway station and with none of the advantages that the Bill claims.

The Bill would damage Brighton, which is a beautiful, classical and well-kept town and seaside resort of worldwide prestige, richly endowed by nature, history, royalty and the Regency period, as well as by its former borough councils, which made no attempt to organise inroads of this kind upon its beauty and amenities.

Brighton has a northern range of protective hills, a charming architectural sea-front, beautiful chalk cliffs with 100,000 years of fame and history, and, for present purposes, I mention that it has its own sailing club on a steep beach suitable for launching and landing boats. In addition, it has appropriate approach roads, shops and hotels.

If I may use the forbidden and magic word "marina", this is where the marina should be—at the present sailing club. Were it not for money speculators who, even now, change personnel and company names, there is no doubt that that is where it would be sited. Sometimes the company is called "Allied Land Holdings". Sometimes it is called "Westmoreland Properties". Sometimes it is called "Liverpool and County Discount". Whatever "discount" may mean in this connection, certainly it will result in a discount for the ratepayers of Brighton. I shall not trouble the House with a quotation that I have on the subject of the change of names.

This scheme and the Bill are petitioned against by Brighton electors. They are petitioned against by the South-Eastern Gas Board on grounds which are utilitarian, aesthetic and sensible, as I shall show. Suffice it to say that the excuse offered for this impracticable and damaging roads scheme is based on another scheme for a marina which is not the subject of this Bill and which is so expensive and wrong in terms of siting that it may never eventuate. If it does, it will be a financial burden to Brighton's ratepayers for many years.

A marina for yachts could be a very pleasant feature in the proper place—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must come to this Bill, and move away from the Marina Act.

Mr. Hughes

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the marina. I will not utter that magic word again.

Without uttering the word, Brighton's sailing club has all the amenities that this particular place lacks, and Brighton Sailing Club and Shoreham Sailing Club—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, we are not discussing the Brighton Sailing Club. We are discussing the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Hughes

I am doing my best to sail clear of that shoal, Mr. Speaker.

The history of Brighton and its former borough councils has endowed the town richly with these appropriate amenities—but not at Black Rock; not where these roads are proposed. The place now chosen for this fantastic scheme of extravagant expense and philistine spoliation has none of the amenities that I have mentioned.

In a few sentences, I invite the House to envisage the aesthetic and economic tragedy which this sordid, money-grubbing scheme can inflict on Brighton and Black Rock. To the east of Brighton, there are the wide, well-kept roads along the elegant sea front. They lead past distinguished Regency terraces, past Roedean Girls' School, past St. Dunstan's Home for the Blind and to the picturesque village of Rottingdean. To the west, there are equally wide and well-kept roads provided by previous borough councils of Brighton—not the present one—leading to the large and versatile harbour of Shoreham, where, as I have said, there is already a yacht club which could be used.

Every part of Brighton has well-equipped and well-kept roads to which Brighton Borough Council, assisted by the Ministry of Transport, proposes to add a gigantic by-pass road from Shoreham to Newhaven. That may be frustrated if this Bill goes through, as the letter which I have indicated seems to indicate.

That is the unnecessary tragedy now facing Brighton. The Sussex coast has sailing clubs at Shoreham, Brighton and Newhaven. At the west end of Brighton there are Shoreham Harbour, which is large and capacious, the river flowing into it, Shoreham railway station, Shoreham aerodrome, and shops and hotels with good approach roads. Instead of utilising these advantages which are readily at hand, this scheme is foisted on Brighton. I venture to quote a passage from the Brighton Evening Argus of 8th February this year on the subject. It states: Without opening up all the festering wounds about whether or not the Brighton marina will be an amenity to the town, it strikes one as the height of irresponsibility for any corporation to hand over the heritage of its foreshore to make rich private enterprises richer. If the marina is such a boon and a necessity to Brighton, and if Mr. Cohen and his confederates can raise enough capital to make it a viable and profitable proposition, why can't Brighton Corporation?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot call the Brighton Evening Argus to order, but I can call the hon. and learned Member to order. He must talk about the Bill.

Mr. Hughes

I promise not to discuss the marina, Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult to avoid the names—

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be very grateful if you would advise me about that aspect. In the Preamble, the "magic word", as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) calls it, is mentioned. Indeed, the whole Preamble would appear to indicate that this Bill is consequential on the Act. Therefore, are we not in some difficulty in not mentioning what has gone before?

Mr. Speaker

I am not forbidding the hon. and learned Member to mention the word "marina", but a marina has been decided on by an Act of Parliament. We cannot now go into the merits or demerits of a marina on which Parliament has already decided. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Hughes

With respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems that those whom the Brighton Evening Argus call "confederates" are engaged in a gamble in which much of the money and control of Brighton will be taken from the Borough Council and put into the hands of those confederates. Whoever wins the gamble, it will not be Brighton. Brighton will lose. One may well ask under which thimble is the pea. That is what I protest against. Brighton should have control of its own roads and its own foreshore. It should be protected by the Buchanan Report, which was approved by Parliament. I shall give reasons for saying that in this fantastic and misplaced Bill the confederates should be defeated.

In a nutshell, my reasons are as follows. The new roads would conflict with the public interest; with access to the foreshore; with the Buchanan Report; with the gas board's public service to the citizens; and with the Ministry of Transport's negotiations. The scheme would also set up a new town only two miles from the Brighton urban centre. It would urbanise and deface a traditional beauty spot which, as I have indicated, Brighton Borough Corporation protects with a public notice that has been there for years.

It is relevant to the proposed new road and tunnel to quote the notice placed there by the Nature Conservancy. The notice was copied out for me by the distinguished architect to whom I have already referred. It reads: The raised beach was laid down about 100,000 years ago in a warm interval in the middle of a great ice age when the sea level here was 20 or 30 feet higher than it is today. This beach has yielded sea shells, the remains of a whale, teeth of a horse, and a few flint implements made by prehistoric man. The Coombe-Rock was formed during the succeeding period of extreme cold. It consists of chalk and other debris probably washed down by spring and summer rains falling upon a chalk surface broken up by winter frosts of an Arctic severity. It came down the seaward slope of Red Hill—about two-thirds of a mile away to the N.E.—in a pasty condition and guttered over the brow of the old cliff; later, it hardened to its present state. It has yielded bones and teeth of a mammoth and woolly rhinoceros as well as remains of animals which lived in the warm interval, such as hippopotamus. The present cliff is the result of marine erosion, the sea having washed away much of these deposits. Such erosion is now prevented by the coast defence works and the site is being preserved by the Corporation of Brighton. That notice appears over the following imprimatur: Notified by the Nature Conservancy as a site of special scientific interest under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. I am sorry to have laboured that matter, but it is important that the House should appreciate not only the history of Brighton but the aesthetic beauty of the place.

I quote that notice on the authority of Mr. Gavin Scully, a Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He has inspected the place and points out, first, that the notice is only 50 yards from the proposed new road; second, that the new road would be tunnelled into the same cliff face; and third, that the new tunnel would be extensive enough to accommodate three branch new roads leading to car parking garages sited on the beach or foreshore.

All this is in conflict with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949; with the Nature Conservancy; with Brighton Borough Council's notice; with the Buchanan Report; and with the public need. On these grounds alone, I submit that the House should reject the Bill as being contrary to Statute, contrary to public policy, and contrary to the needs and interest of the Brighton people.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Marten Maddan (Hove)

I am sure that the House will agree, Mr. Speaker, that you were generous to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in allowing him to develop his argument as he did. I do not propose to follow his argument, except to say that to base any case at all against the roads referred to in the Bill he had to redeploy his case against the marina which has already been approved by the House. All the local Members of Parliament having supported the marina, they naturally support this Bill, which is a necessary concomitant of the marina scheme.

The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the citizens of Brighton, but the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) has already pointed out that by a vote of two to one, on a town's poll, the great majority of those citizens have already said that they are in favour of the Bill to provide these roads, and to provide them now, at that end of Brighton where the marina is to be built. It was said that the ratepayers of Brighton would suffer. Far from it, for the Marina Company is making a very substantial contribution to the cost of the roads proposed under this Bill, which have to be built some time in the next dozen years anyway.

I should have thought the hon. and learned Member might have made a point about the position of the actual residents in property which will be affected by this Bill. With them I sympathise. I sympathise with anyone whose property is to be taken to make way for some public scheme. I think we all do, but we all know that whether it is for schools, hospitals, roads or other public purposes, from time to time this has to happen. The important thing then is that those people should have fair compensation. Brighton Corporation has negotiated with as many as it can and hopes to conclude negotiations amicably with the rest, but if it cannot do so of course, as happens in all cases of this sort, compulsory powers will be needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked if the purchase of the houses would be completed and the money paid over before the property was taken. That, of course, depends on how reasonable the residents are in reaching agreement with Brighton Corporation. If they were holding out for some entirely unreasonable sum, of course it would be necessary—perhaps so that engineering works could proceed—for the houses to be taken first, but that certainly is not the intention of the corporation.

Mr. Costain

Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that the actual sum can be agreed with the district valuer. The problem is how quickly the corporation pays. These people are to be put to considerable inconvenience.

Mr. Maddan

The district valuer determines the amount, not Brighton Corporation. As I understand, the district valuer having determined the amount and any appeals having been heard and settled, Brighton Corporation will pay, but in so far as it proceeds by negotiation the negotiation depends upon a reasonable attitude being taken by the persons in the property as well as by the corporation.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

The hon. Member appreciates, does he not, that the objection to this process is not so much the marina, but what follows from it? Here we have a situation where a vast commercial enterprise is being undertaken, where the developers could not obtain compulsory purchase powers within their own right and are using the corporation to do for them what they could not do for themselves, because they would have no Parliamentary powers to carry out that process. That is where the indignation arises.

Mr. Maddan

The hon. Member for Kemptown explained that the road scheme for the eastern end of Brighton was already on the files of Brighton Corporation. All that is at issue now is whether it should come forward at this time because the marina makes it more urgent, or whether it should wait until a later date. Because of that I need not follow the hon. Member into the question of the marina and its advent making a necessity for these roads, except that many privately-owned facilities—for instance, Wembley Stadium—must affect a road scheme for the area. The marina will affect the road scheme for this area. There is nothing peculiar about that.

So it is with sympathy for people who find themselves under this scheme—or any other—having to be bought out, that I give complete support to this Bill as a neighbour of Brighton. The Bill is an essential complement to a Bill which was passed previously by this Parliament concerning Brighton Marina itself.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

As the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said, it is quite clear from the Preamble of the proposed Measure that it is consequential to the Brighton Marina Act, which we cannot discuss tonight, however many of us deplore that private persons should be given the public foreshore and in that way destroy part of our national heritage.

Before the House passes this Bill we should ask for a much fuller explanation of why these roads are required. I understand that no public inquiry has been held as to the necessity for these roads. Those who bring the Bill before the House should have taken that preliminary step before asking approval for the Bill. Even if it were shown that these roads are required, we should ask why the public should be asked to pay for them. Is it appropriate for statutory powers to be used to enable a private concern to flourish more profitably? I do not think it is. Is it appropriate for a private concern, apparently, to be able to short-circuit plans which the Ministry of Transport has for this area?

A further aspect of this matter concerns the House as a whole, whether or not hon. Members approve this scheme. That is, whether the proposals in the Bill, with its totally redrawn approach road system, is an attempt to get round Parliament's refusal on the last Measure to give compulsory powers to purchase land and property for the approach roads. The House will recall that those powers were deleted from the former Measure by the Committee on the ground that since this was primarily a private enterprise development the land should be acquired by negotiation. This aspect requires most detailed consideration by the House. If the Measure goes to Committee, I hope that hon. Members on the Committee will inquire closely into whether the Bill is a subterfuge to get round the deletion of those powers in the previous Measure.

I am not persuaded by what I have heard tonight that the House should allow the Bill to proceed. Unless we have a much more forthcoming explanation from those who support the Measure, I shall certainly vote against it.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has spoken with some disdain of the marina having been sponsored by a private enterprise company. He will, however, find that all the great ports such as Southampton and Liverpool, were developed by private enterprise companies in the first place. The marina was obviously not something which would be put up by a public authority.

I shall not have to argue that case, because the Bill for the marina has already been passed. I argue as one not connected with Brighton, but as a member of the general public and of the yachting fraternity. In that connection, it seems that this consequential Bill is very necessary and should be passed. I think that I am right in saying that the yachting fraternity read with pleasure that the marina was to be constructed. There is a considerable fringe on the South Coast—

Mr. Roebuck

Was it not also welcomed by the gambling fraternity? Are there not some facilities for gambling?

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I have not gone into that. Hon. Members representing Brighton and district will no doubt tell us something about it. I am talking about it merely as somebody interested in going down to the sea in ships, or in yachts. If there is to be a little harbour for boats and yachts, the yachtsmen obviously have to get there.

When I read about it, it seemed to me that it was natural that there would have to be a Bill following the Brighton Marina Act to enable roads to be built so that yachtsmen could get to the marina. Not only that, but many people who are not at all well off tow dinghies and boats down to the water's edge. This is another reason why roads are an absolute consequential necessity following the Brighton Marina Act.

The Select Committee found that it was not right for a commercial enterprise to construct roads or to apply for powers to do so, but that it would be right for a public authority to do so. I agree. Roads are a matter for a public authority. Roads affect the public interest. They affect ratepayers. They affect people living and working in Brighton. Therefore, these roads should be built by the public authority.

The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) told us of the tragic events which would follow the building of this road over the Coombe Rock. He gave us a graphic and historical account of the Rock. My memory is that the Rock extends for several miles. As a child, I walked along and picked up molloscs and seaweed on the Rock. I imagine that the road will take only a couple of hundred yards over the Rock and will not affect the great historic value of the mass of the rocks that stretch for two or three miles along the coast.

Finally, I believe that the public interest will be well served if there are some roads down to this little harbour to enable thousands of people—rich, poor, middle income groups—who enjoy sailing to walk, drive and, indeed, to tow their boats down to the marina.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

Normally I would not consider it part of my duty to intervene in a matter of this kind, as I represent a constituency hundreds of miles from Brighton, but I have been to Brighton many times and have taken an interest in the surrounding countryside and in the amenities of Brighton, particularly its coastline. Although we are prohibited by the rules of order from bringing into debate again the merits of the marina scheme, we are concerned tonight with something that flows from the House of Commons, wrongly in my view, giving approval to that scheme.

I want to voice my objections as temperately as I can. I deplore the fact that a scheme backed by a vast amount of finance and to be operated for purely commercial reasons can take control over a very beautiful part of the foreshore of my native land. It is deplorable that the South Coast of England, stretching from Brighton through Hove and away to Chichester, has been defaced and ruined by spurious and completely uncivilised economic development of one kind or another.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. We are discussing the Brighton Corporation Bill, which deals with road access in Brighton.

Mr. Price

I am dealing with that also, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for pulling me up, because I do not want to get out of order.

In speaking of this coastline I am dealing with the lines of communication serving it. Both the collateral roads and the roads approaching the coast are matters of public policy which affect the central Government just as much as they affect the borough which has given its approval to this scheme.

It is a matter of no passing importance that we are being asked to by-pass the Ministry of Transport and its long-term policy for roads to convenience commercial developers. Hon. Members, in the discharge of their public duty, have a right to say that they do not think this is in accordance with public policy. As hon. Members who have interested themselves in the Bill on other occasions know, there is great doubt about what is to happen in the near future to the owners of houses affected. I hold no brief for these householders: I do not know them. I know my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who lives in Brighton. He graces the town by his presence there so late in life. He has put himself on the map. I understand that he swims every day off the coast there. In future he will be prevented from taking his morning dip, merely because somebody will interfere with the cliffs and burrow tunnels for new roads there.

It has been said that compensation will be dealt with by the district valuer. Will it? The district valuer used to fix an arbitrary figure which had to be observed. As I understand it, under statute law the full commercial value, not an arbitrary figure, must now be paid. Brighton Corporation will be acting as agents in the exercise of its power to issue compulsory purchase orders, which the developers could never have issued on their own behalf. The company which is financing for the time being this operation in its early stages—Allied Land and Investment Company Limited—is currently the subject of a take-over bid by another group of financiers.

The leaseholders or freeholders who are to be dispossessed occupy some of the most beautiful residential Regency-type houses in the town. These houses still have aesthetic beauty, in contrast with some of the commercial property now going up. Is the corporation, in fixing the value it must pay for these properties, to be completely uninfluenced by the body which will be handing the finance to the corporation? This operation must be partly financed by whoever owns the scheme when it comes to fruition. There is a doubt in my mind about who will be the operative partner if another group of financiers are now seeking to take over the operations carried on by the firm I have named.

I have already indicated that I feel strongly that Britain should always be aware that many commercial interests have no regard whatever for our aesthetic inheritance by way of countryside, coastline, and the natural beauty of our native land. The House should be alert to say that on suitable occasions it is not prepared to be over-ridden by the presentation of a vast commercial scheme which appears to be attractive to various concerns. Those who are in support of the scheme can take what comfort they like from the fact that Brighton Corporation has sponsored and supported the scheme. But part of this scheme would not have been sponsored but for the fact that there has been introduced into it a vast new source of gambling, which I have always opposed in this House as anti-social and against the best interests of our people.

Therefore, I hope the House will not lightly pass this Measure which will give to the developers, through their agents, the Brighton Corporation, the right to levy taxes for the financing of these new roads when no undertakings have been given as to what is to happen to the people whose homes are to be pulled down, the cost of which is to be defrayed by this scheme.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but there is nothing in the Bill about gambling. This is a simple Bill, and, despite all that has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), whose dislike of the marina scheme is very well known, and very sincerely held, of course, this scheme is intended simply to enable certain roads at the eastern end of Brighton to be improved.

Hon. Members may recollect that a number of years ago I held the position held by the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope, will say a few words on the Bill tonight. I recall that even in those days Brighton Corporation was extremely concerned about the necessity for improving the road systems in that part of the town. Indeed, there was a scheme designed as long ago as 1953 for providing an ambitious gyratory system to divert traffic around the sides of a square formed by the existing roads, because at the peak periods of the summer the main coast road at the eastern end of Brighton is extremely heavily congested, and in any event, even if the marina had never been thought of, some improvement of those roads at that point would have been necessary.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) quite rightly said—although it has been forgotten by subsequent speakers—the whole point of the Bill is that the scheme has had to be brought forward because the marina is to be constructed. It might well have been that if the marina had never been thought of and if the Brighton Marina Act had never been passed, a programme based upon the scheme outlined in the Bill could have been deferred for some years to come. It could be so, but I rather doubt it because I recollect the pressure that there was some years ago on this matter. If I remember the figures correctly, I think it is true to say that in about 1965 traffic flow at peak periods at this point of Brighton was in the region of 1,200 vehicles an hour, and that is pretty heavy. Therefore, in any event the scheme would have been needed.

I have said that there was an earlier scheme, originally designed in about 1952 or 1953, and revised in 1958. It is true that that scheme would have been very much bigger than the rather more modest and somewhat more effective scheme that is proposed in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, quite rightly told the House that since Parliament has approved the marina and since the Brighton Marina Act is on the Statute Book, we should not go into its merits. But I think it is important that the House should recollect that when the Bill was before a Committee of this House, it was said by the promoters that the roads would have to be improved, and the Committee quite rightly then said, "In that case, we cannot grant you, a private organisation, compulsory powers. If, on the other hand, the local authority were to come forward to obtain compulsory powers, that would be an entirely different matter." That is exactly what has happened. Parliament refused these compulsory powers to the promoters of the marina, and the corporation has now come forward with its request to Parliament for the compulsory powers. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.

May I say a word about what I apprehend to be the effect upon housing. I have had some letters about this, and other hon. Members, too, may have had letters. I have already referred to the earlier scheme in the 1950s. I believe that in the 1958 scheme, which was much bigger than the present scheme, the acquisition of 37 houses and three flats would have been necessary, and 118 houses and flats and a convalescent home would have been encircled by the gyratory system. They would have become an island. The present scheme is much less ambitious. As I understand, only 20 houses and two flats are involved in acquisition at all. Six of these are already owned by the corporation; two more have had terms for purchase agreed by the owners; and there are negotiations proceeding in respect of two others.

I think it is significant that only two petitions against the Bill have been lodged. One is the petition by the gas board, some of whose land is affected. The House is sophisticated enough to know that a public utility like a gas board always puts in a petition if any of its land is even remotely affected; and of course, negotiations take place and a settlement is reached. I believe that a settlement in this case, if it has not already been reached, is about to be reached.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he has been saying about the gas board is pure hypothesis? The petition stands. The gas board has its objections, and any question of a settlement such as the hon. Gentleman suggested is pure imagination on his part.

Mr. Hay

With all respect to the hon. and learned Member, the South Eastern Gas Board people are pretty big boys, and I expect they can stand up to the Brighton Corporation if they need to. I have told the House what I understand to be the position, which is that negotiations with the gas board have either been completed or are expected to be completed, which will probably lead to the withdrawal of the petition. There is nothing startling or unusual about that.

Mr. Costain

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said about the number of properties involved. Does he recall that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) talked about "nursing homes" in the plural? Would he confirm that that is imagination on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman?

Mr. Hay

I would hesitate to use such a word in the presence of the hon. and learned Member. Some of the remarks that he made to the House earlier, were, I think, perhaps a little high flown, shall I say? But I would not say that they were the product of imagination. As I understand the facts, a single nursing home—not more than one—is no longer affected, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. The important thing is this—

Mr. J. T. Price

rose—

Mr. Hay

No, I will not give way for a moment.

If the Bill gets a Second Reading it will be for the Committee on the Bill to investigate such a question. The whole purpose of this Second Reading is that we say that we agree in principle to the Bill going forward for consideration by a Committee. It is for a Committee to investigate all these issues.

Mr. J. T. Price

The hon. Gentleman is putting his point very moderately. But is he not introducing what lawyers call the de minimis argument—that these are only small properties and there are only a few of them? Is he not avoiding the main question, that this scheme and the attendant growth will change the whole character of the area and destroy what it now is?

Mr. Hay

I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient. I was coming to that point.

I was talking about the owners of property and the houses which are affected when the hon. and learned Member interrupted me in defence of the South Eastern Gas Board. I come back to the question of the houses. As I say, apart from the petition by the gas board, only one other petition has been lodged, and that is by the owners of seven of the houses which are involved in the whole of this scheme.

With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I doubt that there is such violent feeling throughout the Borough of Brighton about some grave injustice which would be done by the Bill to the owners of houses in that part of the town. If it were so, I am sure that a much more powerful petition would have been lodged. But, be that as it may, the whole point is that, since it is now a public authority, the local authority, which would be given the power of compulsory acquisition, the compensation to be paid to the owners of the properties will have to follow the normal statutory rule, namely, that they will receive market value.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) spoke of "full commercial value:". That is market value. In recent years, I am glad to say, Parliament has so provided, to put matters right. Further, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think it a little unfortunate that some of those who were involved in the earlier debates on the matter did not appreciate that, when compulsory purchase powers were sought by the Marina Company, that company would, under the earlier Act, as I understand, have had power to pay more than market value. It is one of the bones of contention of the present owners of property affected that they will receive only market value, not market value plus something more which they would have had if the Marina Company had had the statutory power which the House then would not give it.

I come now to the question of the raised beach. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman was exaggerating when he said that this scheme and the roads to be built would seriously affect the Coombe Rock and this area of great natural interest. I am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that the road will be a considerable distance away, and I am convinced that the corporation, watched carefully with its customary eagle eye by the Ministry of Transport, will do all it can to avoid any interference with that unique geological formation.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton, in an intervention just now, said that the scheme would completely change the whole character of this end of the town. I do not know how well the hon. Gentleman knows that end of Brighton.

Mr. J. T. Price

Very well indeed.

Mr. Hay

I know it very well. I was born there, and I lived there for many years. The part the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Georgian terraces and the great architectural heritage, is further to the west.

The part in which this scheme is to take place has always been regarded by Brightonians as a not particularly attract- tive area. There is the gas works. There are all sorts of rather undistinguished late Victorian houses, some of which will be demolished under the scheme. My own feeling is that, if it goes through, the scheme will enormously improve the general appearance of the area, linked as it will be with the marina, for which I have never denied my support. I believe that it will be a splendid thing for the town. It will bring a great many people there and will give a great deal of pleasure to many.

Mr. J. T. Price

It will bring a lot more "spivs" there.

Mr. Hay

I think that most improbable. I hesitate to say who will come, but I do not think that "spivs" will be found at the marina.

Having said that, I give my support to the Bill. I reiterate what I said a moment ago, since it is important that the House should recognise what it is doing. We are asked to give the Bill a Second Reading. We are asked that it should then go to Committee for careful and detailed examination of all the points which have been raised tonight. In the circumstances, I hope that we shall follow our normal practice and adopt that course.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The usual complaint about Private Bills is that they sneak on to the Statute Book without the House knowing much about them. No one could say that of the Brighton marina scheme. The principle of it and the detail have been fully debated already—a Second Reading debate on the Bill in this House and in another place, and a Report stage debate in this House and another place. We are, therefore, familiar with the background to the present Bill.

I doubt that the powers sought by the Brighton Corporation under the Bill are not in its hand already as the law stands. In other words, I doubt that it needs the Bill. It is an authority which can build roads and even build tunnels for roads. I think it very honest of the corporation to say to the House, "The traffic conditions at the moment, perhaps, do not justify our building these roads, but they will in a few years". The corporation could say that traffic conditions are such now that it must have powers to build, but it has put the matter honestly to the House.

Under these two Measures, the Brighton Marina Act, 1968 and the present Bill, an important principle has been established. The House rejected the plea of a commercial enterprise to be given the right to exercise compulsory purchase powers. In our debates at that time, the House said that they were not powers which it was prepared to give to a private commercial enterprise, but it would give them to a local authority. Now, the Bill comes before us which would give those powers to the Brighton Corporation, and one cannot take exception to it at this stage.

One sympathises with those whose property will be acquired, but one could not possibly speak of this scheme, as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) did, as a Philistine spoliation. I hope, however, that the corporation will find a way to compensate owners quickly. If there is power to pay a percentage of the district valuer's valuation so that owners may find other accommodation easily and quickly, I hope that the corporation will undertake to make such a payment, even if the question of the final figure has to go to the Lands Tribunal. If something substantial could be paid on account, that would relieve the hardship of those suffering compulsory acquisition.

In Committee, the corporation will have to prove the dual need for the powers which it seeks, the dual need set out in the Preamble, namely, that in the foreseeable future the traffic will so increase as to make these roads necessary, and, second, that almost at the present time they will be necessary for the Marina project, as, indeed, was said in Section 41 of the previous Act.

I respectfully express the opinion, therefore, that the House should send the Bill to Committee, on the ground that, if the Preamble is proved, the powers sought by the corporation may properly be granted.

8.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

It might be helpful to the House to know that my right hon. Friend is prepared to approve the roadworks detailed in the Bill, which is a follow-up of the Brighton Marina Act, which contained a provision in Section 41 that If, in the opinion of the Minister, any part of the authorised development will, when open for use, either on its own account or in conjunction with some other portion of that development, produce conditions in the neighbourhood of the authorised development requiring road facilities additional to those which would otherwise then be available, that part of the authorised development shall not be open for use unless and until such additional road facilities as the Minister certifies to be required to meet those conditions have been provided to his satisfaction. The completed marina will be a very large development containing a yacht harbour, marina club, restaurants, public houses, oceanarium, ice rink and recreational facilities, shops, hotels, a boatel, and residential units. The site adjoins the principal road, A259, which would be unable to accommodate the traffic generated by the development if access were to be taken directly from it.

It has been recognised all along by everyone concerned that special traffic arrangements would be needed to cater for the extra traffic, and that a satisfactory system would involve fairly extensive roadworks. The proposal in the Bill comprises a gyratory system using part of Roedean Road, which will become oneway, Riflebutt Road, which will be widened, and a new road to be constructed from the southern end of Rifle-butt Road to swing across nearly to Boundary Road to join Roedean Road again. Access roads to the marina will be joined to the system at the southern end. The whole system will be grade separated from the A259, and will not impede other traffic on that road.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Has not my hon. Friend entirely overlooked that it is only the marina site that requires the extra roads, that the alternatives I mentioned in my speech already have those amenities, and that no further Bill would be necessary with them?

Mr. Brown

It is not for me to introduce a further debate on where the marina should be sited.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) seemed to suggest that the Bill would by-pass the priorities of the Ministry of Transport. I want to clear up this point. The Bill gives the Brighton Corporation the power to borrow money to construct these roads, which are purely within the responsibility of the council. They are not Ministry of Transport roads as such, and would not rank for grant from the Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why is the Minister intervening?"] This is a Private Bill. I am taking no part in any controversial issues, but I want to put the record right on what my hon. Friend seemed to suggest, and I am entitled to do this.

Mr. J. T. Price

I raised this matter inferentially when I spoke. What I want to know more specifically is whether the Ministry of Transport can change its priorities for allocating public money to different parts of the country, whether, through a tremendous capital development undertaken by a private company, the Ministry can be dragged into the matter at a late stage and have to shift its priorities. I should like a firm undertaking on this. The road my hon. Friend has just referred to is a 50 per cent. grant road. It is not a purely local road.

Mr. Brown

If my hon. Friend would only be a little more patient, he would save the time of the House. I had intended going on to say that Brighton will receive no special treatment in the granting of consent to borrow. Any borrowings will be subject to Treasury consent, with Ministry of Transport approval. This will not be given unless a priority can be established in relation to road construction as a whole. If that is the assurance my hon. Friend seeks, I am happy to give it.

Mr. Roebuck

If my hon. Friend is now telling the House that there is no urgency about the Measure, that it may be some time before the Treasury would be prepared to grant permission to borrow if the Bill went through, there is no urgent need for it.

Mr. Brown

I am not debating the urgency or otherwise of the Measure, but simply stating a bald fact, that no specific priority will be given to borrowing powers. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the proposed road works will make adequate provision for the traffic likely to be generated by the development, and that is where his responsibility comes in.

I want now to deal with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on the question of the new roads proposals which will be submitted being given priority, as he put it, in advance of the Land Use/Transportation Study. Since we are already committed by the Brighton Marina Act, this is something which must be an exception to the study. Some trouble arises over the cliff walk itself. The Bill will give to Brighton Corporation power to acquire land, including part of the cliff top.

Mr. Hector Hughes

My hon. Friend has completely misunderstood what I said. I pointed out that there are alternative sites, with all the amenities necessary, and that the Bill seeks to give this wrong and misplaced site. Will he deal with that?

Mr. Brown

I do not wish to be tempted to incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by disobeying the rules of order.

I simply conclude by saying that Brighton Corporation will have power under the Bill to acquire land including part of the cliff top, but there seems no reason why access to the remaining part of the cliff from Madeira Drive should not remain as before. The proposed works will interfere with the first part of Under-cliff Walk as it is at present—that is, past Black Rock swimming pool—but work No. 11 in the Bill is a diversion of the path which will preserve the through route for pedestrians and should not be any the less convenient than the existing path.

Having looked today at the maps of the scheme, it seems to me that the fact that the cliff path will be brought forward towards the sea will, if anything, make a pleasant walk for pedestrians.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Gresham Cooke (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in the Lobby, but I have not yet been counted and the Tellers seem to have disappeared.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that there has been some misunderstanding—because the Tellers named for this Division are not accustomed to undertaking that duty. Perhaps the proper course would be to call the Division again.

The House again divided: Ayes 56, Noes 60.

Division No. 120.1 AYES [8.45 p.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hay, John Newens, Stan
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hazell, Bert Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Biffen, John Hiley, Joseph Page, Graham (Crosby)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hirst, Geoffrey Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Cant, R. B. Hoy, James Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Carmichael, Neil Janner, Sir Barnett Rhodes, Geoffrey
Costain, A. P. Kenyon, Clifford Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Crawshaw, Richard Knight, Mrs. Jill Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Currie, G. B. H. Lawson, George Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr) Lipton, Marcus Tinn, James
Dobson, Ray MacColl, James Wall, Patrick
Doughty, Charles Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Ward, Dame Irene
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mawby, Ray Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Maxwell, Robert Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Goodhew, Victor Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gregory, Arnold Monro, Hector
Gresham Cooke, R. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hannan, William Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Dennis Hobden and
Harper, Joseph Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Mr. Martin Maddan.
NOES
Alldritt, walter Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) Probert, Arthur
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Bishop, E. S. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rowlands, E.
Booth, Albert Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Sheldon, Robert
Brooks, Edwin Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N' c' tle-u-Tyne)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones. T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Silverman, Julius
Coleman, Donald Lubbock, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Doig Peter McBride, Neil Tuck, Raphael
Driberg, Tom Mackie, John Urwin, T. W.
Ennals, David Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Varley, Eric G.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Faulds, Andrew Millan, Bruce Wellbeloved, James
Fernyhough, E. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Ogden, Eric Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Freeson, Reginald Orbach, Maurice Woof, Robert
Grey, Charles (Durham) Oswald, Thomas
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Palmer, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Heffer, Eric S. Parker, John (Dagenham) Mr. Peter Archer and
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pavitt, Laurence Mr. Roy Roebuck.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)