HC Deb 15 December 1970 vol 808 cc1253-80

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

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

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

The Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air Corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enterprise airline.

First, I should register objection that none of the Ministers responsible for the Bill from the Department for Trade and Industry or, in particular, the Minister of Aviation Supply is present. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain why the Minister for Trade is not here to introduce the Third Reading of his own Bill.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whifelaw)

The Bill was moved; I moved it. I am Leader of the House and I am entitled to move it. The right hon. Gentleman is now speaking.

Mr. Mason

Do I take it that the Minister does not intend to turn up and that he did not intend to introduce the Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw

There is no need to draw any conclusions other than what I have said.

Mr. Mason

Perhaps the Leader of the House would be good enough to give a fuller explanation of why no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is present when a Bill of that Department is before the House and due to be finally debated. Secondly, it is incumbent on the Minister to be present and to move the Third Reading himself because a Motion is before the House. Where is he? Why is no Minister present?

Mr. Whitelaw

I moved the Third Reading of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. I will ensure that the Minister is here. Let the right hon. Gentleman continue to speak.

Mr. Mason

Do I take it that the Leader of the House is prepared to reply to the debate? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade is not here and will not be aware of my comments, but it is he whom I wish to reply to the debate. The Leader of the House has no knowledge of civil aviation.

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Gentleman will be here. If he is not, I will reply to the debate.

Mr. Mason

I think it is disgraceful that the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for the Bill, is not here. There are five Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry; why is no Minister present? As no Minister is present, I suggest that the Leader of the House could be gentlemanly and move that the House be adjourned until the Minister is present.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

On a point of order. Can you help us, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is it possible for the House to conduct the business in hand when the responsible Minister is not here? It would seem to be a pointless endeavour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)

Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gave a categorical assurance to the House five weeks ago that he would guarantee that the Minister responsible would be present when a debate was taking place, but the Minister was not present at the commencement of this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that also is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mason

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, but it has been disgraceful conduct on his part that, knowing full well that a debate for which he was responsible was imminent, neither he nor his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade was present at the outset of the debate. As I have begun, I intend to carry on.

The Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enter-price airline. This is a disgraceful and shabby exercise which is indicative of the hate that the Tory Party has of successful nationalised industries, and it is typical of the pique of Tory Party philosophy.

The Bill, which gives the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the unprecedented power of determining which routes B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. shall operate, also empowers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Will hon. Gentlemen leaving the Chamber please do so as quietly as possible.

Mr. Mason

—them to pick off any flight or series of flights and, without any compensation to the corporations, give them away to any private enterprise airline. The Bill is designed to wound the corporations, especially at a time when their finances and indeed the finances of civil aviation as a whole, are on a cyclical decline.

The Bill is dangerous for three reasons. First, the Government recognising that it was doubtful whether they had the necessary powers under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, and the Air Corporations Act, 1967, and that these doubts were being challenged by the Corporations and, in particular, were to be tested in the court by the trade unions, have brought in the Bill to forestall litigation and stifle the normal legal processes. This is indicative of the lengths to which they will go to help their friends, the private speculators, and on this occasion it includes foreign speculators as well. Having obliterated any court action, they determined that no appeal is to be allowed against these route transfers. That in itself is a dangerous act.

Secondly, on the route transfer operations we are bound to question the impact of the Bill abroad. Some nations already fear a lessening of British interests overseas because the Bill gives the Government the right unilaterally to transfer routes from a State airline to a doubtful private enterprise venture. So far we do not know the routes or the nations involved. So far the Minister has not yet been able to reveal this to the House either during the Second Reading of the Bill or in Committee. Yet this information has been passed from B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to the Department of Trade and industry; it has been sent on to Caledonian and B.U.A. for them to choose the routes which they think the most profitable so that they can get their £6 million of annual route revenue from the corporations.

However, there have been "leaks" in the Press and it appears that the Paris routes, as well as flights to Portugal, West Africa, and Gibraltar, may all be affected. All these countries will assume that there is a lessening of British interest in their affairs, but particularly in civil aviation development. If these route transfers mentioned in the Bill are effected, is it not likely that the reaction of these nations will be to encourage another foreign national airline to develop routes within their nation and pooling operations in their countries? Consequently, there will be a loss to British civil aviation development, a loss of foreign exchange and stronger competition from foreign airlines.

All these transfers of routes will take place without payment of compensation. We are not just transferring a licence. There is the task involved in the development of a route, international advertising, the development of facilities en route and the growth of good will. There is all the effort that has been put into making a loss into a profit and there is the subsequent profitability growth in the route itself. All these are to be taken away without any compensation.

Do the Government realise what a dangerous precedent they are establishing? This matter will not be overlooked. They have started on the airlines. They may tinker with steel, coal, the Post Office Corporation. But in this Bill they are now setting a pattern of confiscation without compensation.

We have already warned all those concerned in this venture—all those who take these routes from B.O.A.C and B.E.A. without compensation and who during subsequent years will have profited thereby—that on returning to office we reserve the right to transfer them back without any compensation at all.

This is the first of the hiving off operations. This Bill is only the beginning of this particular operation. It establishes beyond legal doubt the right of the Secretary of State to effect route transfers to the detriment of the corporations and for the benefit of private speculators.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

It is a blank cheque.

Mr. Mason

We do not yet know how many routes will be involved, how many flights will be affected, or how many foreign nations will be concerned.

It is incumbent upon the Minister, before the Bill goes through—before giving it what my hon. Friend just called a "blank cheque"—to inform the House which routes making up the £6 million annual route revenue of both Corporations will go to this private venture airline.

But that will not be the end of the matter. The Orders still have to be laid, and the Minister will have to come back to the House. Because the principle embodied in this operation is so basically rotten and anti-democratic and creates a precedent of confiscation without compensation which future Governments can easily follow, we shall oppose those Orders throughout, just as I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight to reject the Bill absolutely.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble)

I rise with embarrassment. I think that the whole House knows that I should not want to be discourteous. I was only a few yards from the Chamber. I was not expecting the Bill to be called quite so quickly. I hope the House will accept that as a genuine apology. These things do occasionally happen, even when one is ready and prepared.

Third Reading tonight is the third debate that we have had on almost the same point, because this is a one Clause Bill. We discussed it on Second Reading, on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill in Committee, and now we are discussing it on Third Reading, Therefore, I should like to repeat two or three things which I have said before which cannot be changed in any way on the third occasion.

First, the Bill does not convey any new powers on anybody; it simply re- moves the possibility of delay. This may be objectional to those who perhaps wanted to use delay as a method of defeating the particular purpose of the Bill.

Secondly, the scale of transfers is comparatively modest. It is easy to talk about £6 million of route revenue. But when we realise that B.O.A.C. alone has an annual route revenue of over £200 million, and in normal times expects and plans for its route revenue to increase by 14 or 15 per cent., the whole matter is put in its proper proportions.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every major airline in the world is now revising its revenue expectation very seriously downwards, and that most of the major carriers are talking about as little as 5 per cent., and certainly less than 10 per cent.? For the right hon. Gentleman to talk of 14 per cent. tonight shows a gross ignorance of the facts of the situation.

Mr. Noble

The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I said that that was what B.O.A.C. had been calculating in normal times. I accept that at the moment the situation is changing, that the route revenue is not rising as fast as was expected, but B.O.A.C. is still in the long term making its calculations on the same basis. Whatever calculation is made, even if one accepts the hon. Gentleman's 5 to 10 per cent., it is still a very small part of the revenue of one major British undertaking.

I promised the right hon. Gentleman that at the first possible moment I would give him and the House the information that was available on route transfers. It has been decided that a part of the route transfers will take place. I cannot yet give a complete answer, but 1 can say tonight that B.O.A.C. will cease after 31st March 1971 to serve Lagos and Kano in Nigeria and Accra in Ghana, with the intention that Caledonian-B.U.A. should serve them directly from London thereafter. The authorities of Nigeria and Ghana have been so informed.

There will be some other part of this transfer to be negotiated, and we are discussing it still with the airlines concerned. But I felt that it was right to tell the House at the first moment when a decision had been taken on part of it. It is right because there has been speculation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not believe all the stories he reads in the Press. Some of them are not even faintly founded on fact and some of them are certainly ideas which have been considered. That is the extent of the route transfers that has been agreed so far, and I am announcing them to the House on the first possible opportunity tonight.

Mr. Mason

What percentage of the £6 million of annual route revenue is represented by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement? What anxieties have Nigeria and Ghana expressed about private enterprise taking over from State airlines in the region?

Mr. Noble

Without breaking commercial confidences—a point that the right hon. Gentleman has made to me once or twice—I cannot say exactly what the route revenue on this line is, but I can say that the West African link is well below the figure I have given to the House, and there will therefore be some balance to be added on top.

We have informed the authorities in Nigeria and Ghana, and have had no expression of anxiety about the lessening of British interest to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

There may be other hon. Members who want to speak. The debate has taken place on three occasions, on roughly the same subjects, and I know that there is no reasonable opportunity of persuading hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a sensible policy. But I hope that the House will realise that this is not done with the sinister motives the right hon. Gentleman chooses to impute to us. A very distinguished Committee recommended it. The right hon. Gentleman and his friend did not dispute the broad principle, but they were rather unwilling to will the means to make it a success.

I commend this small Bill to the House and wish success to the new British second force which will be operating.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I oppose the Bill, because I see it as part of the Conservative policy of transferring money from the public purse to the rich. In the mini-Budget, we saw a transfer of money from the poor to the rich, and now we see a transfer of money from the public purse to the rich. That is precisely what the Bill will do. The Government are putting their hands into the public purse and taking out money which rightfully belongs to the British public. They will hand it over to a tiny fraction of the population, the financiers. Every hon. Member opposite realises, with great cynicism, that that is the purpose of this Bill and of this Government.

One important political commentator, a supporter in general of the Tory Party, wrote in The Times that he was not surprised. None of us should be surprised that a party supported by the City and by financiers should, on coming to office, reward its friends. We must accept, as a consequence of defeat, that the Government will take our money and give it to their friends.

The statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), that we "reserved the right" not to pay compensation, was not strong enough. There should be no compensation after confiscation of this sort. It is like letting someone steal one's wallet and then paying him compensation when one recovers it. Let us oppose compensation—but let us think further. Since 1945, many of us in the Labour Party have supported the idea of compensation, but I am having second thoughts about it. If it is right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to confiscate public goods, why should we consider the payment of compensation when we extend public ownership? They have opened up this whole question. When we extend public ownershop, we shall remember this night.

I will not be too long: I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have uneasy consciences and I would not want to make them too uncomfortable. But let them remember the consequences of their action tonight for the future. We will remember this terrible Bill for many years to come.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

I too oppose the Bill. The Government's powers in Clause 1 are not borne out by what the Minister said about the transfer of certain routes. One of the purposes of the Bill is to promote competition, but the routes which are being transferred are international routes on which there is already a great deal of competition for our nationalised airlines from national airlines overseas. It is to be hoped that the Government will transfer some domestic routes as well and not leave the second force airline in a monopoly situation. That would be a negation of competition, though we suspect that that is what the Government have in mind.

We do not know how the figure of £6 million worth of routes was arrived at. As the right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee, it is difficult to forecast profitability, taking account of, for example, loading factors, distances, frequency and so on. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the assurance he gave in Committee that this is to be a once-for-all transfer. We must be certain that if the airline does not make a profit following this transfer, the Government will not say that more must be handed over. I say this because it seems doubtful whether this £6 million worth of routes will achieve what the airline and the Department expect.

I do not agree with my hon. Friends who say that this transfer represents a rape of this public corporation. Rather, it is a case of indecent assault. The Government are putting their hands into the pockets of a prosperous and profitable nationalised industry, and it is to be hoped that they do not repeat this crime.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one does not commit indecent assault by putting one's hands in someone's pockets? That is common robbery. The hon. Gentleman should be conversant with the facts of life.

Mr. Deakins

At least the hon. Gentleman agrees that a crime has been committed. We can agree to disagree about its exact nature.

Mr. Molloy

The hon. Member for Epping seems to be an authority on indecent assault and many other pernicious activities.

Mr. Deakins

I had better leave the matter there.

We have reason to believe that the Government do not have the courage of their convictions. I would be out of order in mentioning the clearing bank monopoly and so on. What they are proposing could lead to greater competition in the air, but we are afraid that it will merely mean the replacement of one monopoly situation with another, with in due course, the Government saying that as the second force has failed to make a profit, more must be transferred to it. May we be assured that this is a once-for-all assault on this prosperous and profitable nationalised industry?

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I will not delay the House, though certain points bear repetition. For example, if the Government wanted to do less damage to B.O.A.C., they could have legalised hijacking, for that is the situation being faced by this State-owned corporation under the Bill.

For the Government to be taking this step now is astonishing. For them to do it at a time of prosperity for airlines would be dangerous. But for them to be doing it at a time when every international carrier is facing financial tremendous difficulties is suicidal.

I have just returned from Los Angeles—[Interruption.] Why hon. Gentlemen opposite find that something to interrupt about I do not know. At least I try to find out what I am talking about. I saw some of the problems being faced by Pan-Am and T.W.A. with layoffs, attempts to sell aircraft and a general background of recession. In trying to fit this Measure into that sort of context, we see the complete and utter ignorance on the part of Her Majesty's Government in civil aviation matters.

It comes, too, at a time when one of our nationalised Corporations is doing sterling pioneering work in lowering fares, because at the recent Honolulu fares conference it was B.O.A.C. which was setting the pace and trying to reduce individual fares. Again, it is the public who will suffer.

I am now wondering whether we are starting to move towards the American situation in which, if an airline wants routes it must contribute to the presidential funds—[Interruption.] It is well known in the States that certain American airlines are Democrat and others are Republican. It has been made quite obvious to the House and the country that British United and Caledonian have not contributed to the coffers of the Labour Party, and we now have the situation where a contribution has been made to the coffers of the Tory Party. There is evidence of this on record, and gentlemen in the City expect to receive their pay-off too. I am wondering just what their campaign—

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): rose

Mr. Huckfield

No, I will give way when I have made my speech. This is information that is listed as a result of legislation passed by the previous Government, and I am wondering how big will be the campaign contribution of B.U.A. and Caledonian next time.

Mr. Onslow

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is doing himself justice as usual. I might remind him that if he wants to make party political points he should remember that Caledonian-B.U.A. have on its board a former Member who was a Government Whip in the last Administration.

Mr. Huckfield

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that alters the fact that the British and Commonwealth made a substantial contribution to the Tory Party last time I cannot agree with him. But if we are not to have the kind of campaign situation in which airlines thus contribute and thereby get a substitution of routes, presumably we shall have the kind of situation in which there will be increased competition on certain routes; in fact, precisely the sort of policy which American, Australian and every other major aviation country is now rejecting. All over the world it is being proved that competition is the wrong way to do things.

I wonder how Ghana Airways, with one VC 10 and a few Viscounts, and Nigerian Airways with two 707s will fare? Those two airlines owe a great deal to B.O.A.C., and now they are to have that aid taken from them they will have to depend on Caledonian-B.U.A. I cannot think of any greater insult to any country.

The Government are now flying in the face of aviation policy all over the world. Every country is saying it will not have such competition, because competition does not work. The Government choose to ignore all international evidence and go completely against the grain. Perhaps as the Government are now showing what they really are we should not be amazed. I urge the total rejection of this very obnoxious Bill.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

The hon. Gentleman has talked about the absence of competition everywhere. Is there absence of competition in America?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

I intervene because many of my constituents are employees of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and are deeply anxious about this step that the Government are taking to forestall legal objections which might come from the Corporations. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. workers are jealous of the conditions and traditions that they have built up over a long period. They are fearful that the result of this handing over of profitable routes of nationalised enterprises will be that their conditions will deteriorate and that profitability will suffer These anxieties are well understood by Ministers. Nothing that is occurring is likely to allay the deep anxieties my constituents have or still the coming opposition to this reduction in the activities of nationalised airways. Nor will it banish from their minds the thought that this is a continuation of doctrinaire politics.

If there were an abstract referendum about the incursion of law into industrial affairs, most people, not knowing much about it, would vote for the idea. If they were asked to say if they believed that an independent civil air force should be created at the expense of the nationalised sector, the answer would be a resounding "No", because B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are regarded as national assets of which the nation should be proud.

I will not become involved in the argument as to whether this is rape or an indecent assault. It reminds me of the maidservant who produced an illegitimate child and who, when taxed about it, said, "It is only a little bastard, after all". This is a small Measure, but it is what it portends that is important. This is why we shall vote against it. This is also why this and the other are of Measures that the Government are taking will lead to their downfall, because as time passes what tended to be obscure will become crystal clear: these are rewards for financial backing for the Tory Party.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I should not like it to be thought that my hon. Friends do anything but welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, wish success to the second force airline that springs from it, and see in this Measure a sensible and constructive action which is essential to the future strength and prosperity of British civil aviation. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), so I will not go further than that. I will simply say that we know that we disagree on this.

The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made it perfectly plain for the third time. He made the same speech with slightly different emphasis—the loud pedal, louder in some places, softer in others. Essentially it was the same speech, with the same misunderstandings and the same fundamental incomprehension of the real issues involved. It is clear that we shall never get them into his head. By all means let him oppose the Orders when they are laid before the House, but let him not make that speech again.

Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I well understand the anxiety of the Opposition Chief Whip to curtail debate on his side of the House, because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has ever favoured us with a more characteristically silly speech.

We congratulate my right hon. Friends on their good sense in introducing this Measure. We believe that it will succeed. We wish Calendonian-B.U.A. success.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

When hon. Members became aware that the Minister for Trade might have forgotten about this debate, some of us thought for a moment that at last the right hon. Gentleman's conscience had been awakened and that he did not wish to be part of a piece of legislation which is no more than legalised robbery. However, our hopes were dashed when the right hon. Gentleman came in and courageously apologised for his late arrival, which I am sure the House accepts.

Earlier today, we were discussing the very important subject of industrial relations. There are many ordinary men and women who have spent their lives working for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and hundreds of them live in my constituency—[Interruption.] A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently find it funny that working men and women should be interested in a publicly-owned industry—

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) rose

Mr. Molloy

I advise the hon. Gentleman to sit down and continue with his laughter.

The employees of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. feel very strongly about these proposals. I do not ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with them, but they should acknowledge the strength of feeling among those working for the corporations, and one would expect the Ministers concerned to take it into account.

The quintessence of the argument is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to give away part of a publicly-owned industry to certain private interests, whereas we on this side of the House believe that this massive industry should be owned by the people, just as the railways and the extraction and coal mining industries are.

None of the people who have written to me have complained that they have not been offered a chunk of the assets which are to be given away, that they have been denied the chance to climb on the band wagon. They have written to me deploring the Government's proposals, which will upset two great organisations and, at the same time, rob the majority of the people and benefit a small minority.

It would be interesting to hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite explain how this Measure fits in with their aim of creating one nation. This is part of the supreme hypocrisy that we have experienced since the present Government came to office. They argue that they wish to unite the people. At the same time, they introduce this sort of Measure which is designed specifically to give financial advantage to a tiny minority who may be their political supporters, at the expense of the vast majority of ordinary people.

This is a crime which will stain the record of this Government for ever. If they have any sense, they will not try to make foolish capital out of running down ordinary men and women who work for our nationalised airlines. If they do, they will face an eruption which is far greater than anything that they anticipate.

Many working people have devoted their lives to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. They believe in the principle of public ownership. They want only to enhance the status of our national airlines. They are responsible people with a point of view. If the Government fail to acknowledge these facts and behave like some hon. Members on the benches behind them, they will stir up a great deal of trouble for themselves.

This Bill is taking a large portion of publicly-owned property from the mass of the people and giving it to a few friends of the Conservative Party. If that is not the case, I hope that the Government will say so, and that this is merely an example of their philosophy of encouraging competition. Let them ensure also that, if this element of competition fails, as well it may, they do not then turn back to the nation which they have exploited and expect it to support financially the failure which they have created.

Even at this late hour, let the Government consider whether what they are doing is right and proper in the present industrial atmosphere. Let them think again about the Bill and withdraw it. If they do not, we on this side will register our protest by voting against it.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) tried to give the impression that there is no one on this side with the slightest inkling of the work not only of B.O.A.C. but of the men on the ground at the various outposts of the Corporation. He ought to know that on this side of the House we are rich in former members of B.O.A.C. staff who fully understand the structure and the working of a major airline.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that a wagon of gold bars is being handed over to Caledonia-B.U.A. It is nothing of the sort. It is a series of licences, and it is up to CaledonianB.U.A., by its efficiency and skill in the market in which it has professional proficiency, to turn that series of licences into gold bars. Not until the airline does that will it be a source of revenue.

The hon. Gentleman suggested also that the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. ground staff wanted a slice of the cake, as he put it. He ought to realise that what is now being done will produce more work and more prosperity in civil aviation. If only the hon. Gentleman will look at it like that, welcoming the prospect of additional work for members of the unions associated with civil aviation, he will, I am sure, wish to put an entirely different slant on his views in twelve month's time.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I have not taken part in any of the discussion on the Bill, and I shall not go into it now, but I have a couple of questions to put to the Government.

Caledonian-B.U.A. makes a great fuss of the Caledonian part of it. It parades its stewardesses in tartan, it has the thistle painted on its aircraft and all over the place, and, I believe—though I do not often travel by Caledonian—it makes a fuss of the haggis in certain circumstances. It even makes some fuss of Drambuie, a very good drink, I agree.

Since this is considered to be first and foremost a Scottish line—we are told of the great fellow Thomson, where he came from, and what he has done—I should like to know more about where the maintenance work of Caledonian-B.U.A. is carried out. Is it to be carried out in Scotland? My understanding is that under Caledonian a substantial amount of maintenance was carried out there and that it is being transferred south. I am not professing to be knowledgeable about this and I hope that I am wrong. I am asking for information.

I hope that a company which flouts—perhaps that is not the right word—which makes so much use of the thistle and the tartan and the bagpipes and such things, will ensure that this maintenance work is done in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is to happen and that he will not say that this is a matter entirely for the private concern. He must understand that this concern owes its existence to what is happening under this Government. Clearly there is a need to provide air services in various remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. I do not think that the Highlands of Scotland has a great deal to do with the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Lawson

We are talking about Caledonian-B.U.A. and I understand that we are talking about routes and about growth. Surely the justification for what is happening here is that this is a company which will grow. It will not be satisfied with a couple of routes, it will take more and more, show its competency, and it is on this basis that I would like to know from the Minister, who knows so much about these things, whether this concern has indicated its desire to take over some of the routes in the highlands of Scotland and if so which routes. It is a reasonable proposition. Perhaps if it were to take over some of these routes they would become highly profitable and no one would be happier than I if that happened. This is not very much to ask.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)

Perhaps I could tell the hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Lawson) that B.O.A.C. also makes a lot of haggis and bagpipes and such things on certain occasions and perhaps he should travel on that airline and know about it. It does very little maintenance at Prestwick. I was surprised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) who, if I caught his meaning correctly, and it is sometimes difficult to do so, said that there are people who want nothing from this, referring to the staff of the nationalised industries—have I got the hon. Member correctly?

Mr. Molloy

What I was trying to explain, and I realise that sometimes it needs a surgical operation to get something into the heads of hon. Members opposite, was simply this, that when the Government decided to carve up B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. many of the ordinary people in my constituency did not want to get in on the act of grabbing something for themselves. They believed that they were right in supporting the principles of public ownership.

Mr. Tebbit

I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had gone rather further and suggested that such was their loyalty that they would never ask for anything for themselves from the airlines. I wondered whether he was aware that there is a go-slow at London Airport because of a demand for extra money. I was deeply shocked by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who, I am glad to see, is on one of his periodic visits to us from Los Angeles, and who had such kindly words for Nigerian Airways. If he is not aware he should be aware that that airline in particular is in scandalous breach of contract by which it is still refusing, a year after the accident to its VC10, to pay compensation, which it admits that it is contractually liable to pay, to the dependants of the dead crew members. Hon. Members opposite may care to note that it is not a privately-owned airline.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit

I return, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the point which I have raised three times and to which I have had no answer. If it is right to compensate when a route licence is taken from one airline to another—that is, when the right to operate on a particular sector of the market, which is defined territorially in this one case, is transferred—why did the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) not think it right to compensate the independent airlines when he unleashed on them B.E.A. Airtours into the sector of the market in which, to use his own words, there had been a cost of advertising, of investment and of making up with profits which they had lost before running into profits? If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. This is the third time of asking. Perhaps on this, the third time, we will have an answer to this problem.

We know full well that this Declaratory Provisions Bill is detested so much by right hon. and hon. Members opposite solely because it gives a fair crack of the whip to the sector of industry which they detest. That is all that is required of the Bill. It is all that ever has been required of it, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that full well when he agreed with the principle of the second-force airline. The only thing with which he does not agree is the principle of giving it enough business on which to live.

I have great faith in Caledonian and British United, and it is most welcome to have the opportunity of seeing this Declaratory Provisions Bill make up for a lot of lost ground in the air transport industry.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his argument, because I cannot believe that he himself believed everything that he was asking the House to believe.

I should like to make two points to the Minister for Trade. I think I am correct in assuming that when he came to the House, he said that he commended the Bill for Third reading even though, he thought, it might be construed by some as robbery, but that as it was only small-scale robbery we should let it go through this time and not worry too much about it.

Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that this was almost the third Second Reading of the Bill. It had a mercifully short Committee stage, because it rarely happens that a Bill can be so bad as this one is that it was impossible to improve it in Committee. In Committee, however, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there were three parts to Clause 1 and that the purpose of the Bill was simply these three purposes: to establish the second force on the basis of a transplant from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., to make sure that it was effectively impossible for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to make any appeals to the courts about the transfer of those routes and, by so doing, to make it possible to bring the second force into operation at least 12 months sooner than it would otherwise have been possible to bring it into operation.

A number of questions were put to the Minister in Committee about the kind of considerations that were engaging his mind about the type of routes. He may remember that I asked whether he was looking at only the profitable routes or only those routes which made a reasonable, practical operational basis, or whether he was looking at both profitable routes, marginal routes and those routes that were operationally linked and which could form a full package.

This morning the papers have been coming out with their leaks and have been talking of hiving off or transferring routes from B.E.A., and the routes being mentioned this morning were those from the United Kingdom to Paris. We have not before had a lot of talk about B.E.A. In the main, the emphasis has been on B.O.A.C., and no one can deny that the United Kingdom to Paris route should be very profitable. Whoever is to answer tonight will, I hope, give an indication and more information than before about the kind of package deal he is considering when he makes this transfer.

Time is now getting to the point where we could expect the Conservative Government to have an idea of what they want to do. It was reasonable to assume before that they had not worked out their ideas aright but had a number of things in mind. Maybe we are expected to wait another month for an announcement during the recess. Instead of deciding Third Reading on the basis of all the information, we are expected to decide it on the basis of a small part of the information.

The Minister has told us about Ghana and Nigeria. Will he repeat his guarantee that he is seriously considering operational routes: profitable, marginal and non-profitable routes, not just the profitable ones?

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

I shall be brief because, as the Grand Old Man of British civil aviation the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, we have been round the course three times.

I should like to refer to a remark of the Minister who said, when referring to the routes to be transferred, that the £6 million of gross revenue was only a small part of the total B.A.O.C. revenue of something like £200 million. They are picking the plums out of the cake. These are not to be just any routes, but no doubt the most profitable routes from the point of view of the new airline.

On the repercussive effects of these proposals, I shall use the same example as I did on Second Reading. What happens now we know that the West African routes are to be transferred? American customers used to come by B.O.A.C. and transfer at Heathrow, going on to their destinations in West Africa. Some will still try the same route, and if they are foolhardy enough to want to travel British will have a messy transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick to get their West Africa-bound plane. This is the kind of consequence which this Government in their ignorance and greed have totally left out of account in their haste to pay their debts to their backers in the City and elsewhere. [Interruption.] I shall go on. I could go on all night.

I resist the temptation from hon. Gentlemen opposite because I prefer to touch finally on the effects of these proposals, of this grand larceny, on the people who have built up this British civil aviation industry into one of the great industries of this country and the premier civil aviation industry of the world. The workers at London Airport and elsewhere who work for the two great public corporations are, to put it mildly, aghast at what the Government are doing to them. For example, in the G.A.S. dispute, which still continues but which reached something of a climax last February, when 14,000 people turned up on a one-day protest at Brentford football stadium—

Mr. Tebbit rose

Mr. Kerr

I will not give way. It is late in the evening and I am deliberately being brief. The hon. Member and I will have a chat later.

If the Government imagine that they are helping the prosperity of British civil aviation by measures of this sort, they must think again. The people who will cause them trouble are the people who rightly feel that their job security is being imperilled by these proposals. Many of them have worked and slaved for 25 years to build these twin nationalised industries into what they are today. They will not stand by and watch the profit-hungry friends of hon. Members opposite dismantle the whole caboosh without a struggle.

If it is the Government's objective—and it is up to them to say whether it is—to build a sound, prosperous civil aviation industry for this country, all I can say to them is, "Watch your step because the way you are going you will guarantee the hostility of the 60,000 people in the industry. You still have time to think again about this larceny on a grand scale. If you do not, then, speaking as one of the parliamentary spokesmen for airport workers at London Airport—

Mr. Tebbit

May I make it plain that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for all the workers at the airport by a very long chalk. [Interruption.] I am sorry for the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I am a member of one of the unions involved there which is not opposing this Bill nor did it take industrial action over the G.A.S. affair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interruptions, to be effective, should be brief.

Mr. Kerr

I will not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to go further, except to say that I, too, am a member, an executive member, of an airline union, which represents a lot more members than his organisation.

There will be big trouble if right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in their ignorance of the industry and of its great traditions, are allowed to go ahead with their proposals. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their determination by voting against the Third Reading.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Noble

With permission, I should like to answer two or three of the points raised in the debate. I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who had not taken part in debates on the Bill before and therefore had not made the same speech on three separate occasions.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to see a company which started in Scotland doing well. The question whether maintenance work will be done in Scotland is not clear. Caledonian having taken over B.U.A. has maintenance shops at Gatwick, which is at the moment its centre of operations. But, as the hon. Member may guess and as many people who know him realise, Mr. Thomson has built his success in Scotland, and if there are opportunities there I am sure that he will take them. He has not yet applied for any air routes in the Highlands. If he does, I am sure that we shall give him, through the normal processes, every possible consideration, and I hope that he makes some profit from them.

Most of the speeches have been made before. I should like simply to repeat the one or two assurances I have given before and which cannot be given too often. First, this is a once for all transfer by this Government for this particular purpose. I have said this probably four or five times, and, if it is any comfort to people, I will say it again.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is worried about competition in almost the same way as his hon. Friend is worried about the absence of it. I quite accept that there are difficulties both ways. Both Caledonian, B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. are at the moment jointly asking for lower fares in I.A.T.A. and are being opposed by foreign airlines.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. He will correct me if I am wrong, but Caledonian is not even a member of I.A.T.A.

Mr. Noble

All I was told was that Caledonian/B.U.A. are jointly seeking lower fares.

I will end by referring to the relevant point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), although I

Division No. 46.] AYES 11.33 p.m.
Adley, Robert Boscawen, H. T. Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Bossom, Sir Clive Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Bowden, Andrew Clegg, Walter
Astor, John Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Cockeram, Eric
Atkins, Humphrey Braine, Bernard Cooke, Robert
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bray, Ronald Coombs, Derek
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Brewis, John Cooper, A. E.
Balniel, Lord Brinton, Sir Tatton Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Batsford. Brian Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Cormack, Patrick
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Costain, A. P.
Bell, Ronald Bruce-Gardyne, J. Critchley, Julian
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay) Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Crouch, David
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Buck, Antony Crowder, F. P.
Benyon, W. Bullus, Sir Eric Curran, Charles
Berry, Hn. Anthony Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Dalkeith, Earl of
Biffen, John Carlisle, Mark d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Biggs-Davison, John Chapman, Sydney Dean, Paul
Blaker, Peter Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Chichester-Clark, R. Digby, Simon Wingfield
Body, Richard Churchill, W. S. Dixon, Piers

think he got it seriously wrong. I have known many industries—for example, the railways—which were at one time in private enterprise and became nationalised and seemed to be moving backwards and forwards. It is vital for the success of any industry, whether private or nationalised, to have the loyalty and support of its staff. In all the months when we have been connected with Caledonian and B.U.A. I have seen nothing to indicate that the staff are not as likely to feel just as strongly about Caledonian/B.U.A. as B.O.A.C. staff feel about their airline. When this new operation starts I am certain that its success will be assured in direct relationship to the way in which the staff feel themselves to be part of the new airline. I am certain that this is also Mr. Thomson's view.

Mr. Ogden

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say whether there is any truth in reports that he is considering transferring or has already decided to transfer from B.E.A. to the new force United Kingdom to Paris routes? He is very good at saying that time and time again he has given certain assurances, and he is equally good at refusing to answer questions which have been asked time and time again.

Mr. Noble

The hon. Gentleman knows quite well—and I have been perfectly frank with the House and in Committee—that we have looked at a number of routes of all descriptions. It is right to announce to the House what is decided and not what has been looked at.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 221.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kershaw, Anthony Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Kilfedder, James Rees, Peter (Dover)
Drayson, G. B. Kimball, Marcus Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dykes, Hugh King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kinsey, J. R. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Elliot, Capt. Walter(Carshalton) Kirk, Peter Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Emery, Peter Knight, Mrs. Jill Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Eyre, Reginald Knox, David Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fell, Anthony Lane, David Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fanner, Mrs. Peggy Langford-Holt, Sir John Rost, Peter
Fidler, Michael Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Royle, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Le Marchant, Spencer St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Fookes, Miss Janet Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Scott, Nicholas
Fortescue, Tim Longden, Gilbert Scott-Hopkins, James
Fowler, Norman Loveridge, John Sharpies, Richard
Fox, Marcus MacArthur, Ian Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fry, Peter McCrindle, R. A. Shelton, William (Clapham)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McLaren, Martin Simeons, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Soref, Harold
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) McNair-Wilson, Michael Speed, Keith
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Spence, John
Goodhart, Philip Madel, David Sproat, Iain
Gorst, John Marten, Neil Stainton, Keith
Gower, Raymond Mather, Carol Stanbrook, Ivor
Grant, Antony (Harrow, C.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Steel, David
Gray, Hamish Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Green, Alan Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Grieve, Percy Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Miscampbell, Norman Stokes, John
Gryils, Michael Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Gummer, Selwyn Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tapsell, Peter
Gurden, Harold Moate, Roger Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Molyneaux, James Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Money, Ernie Tebbit, Norman
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monks, Mrs. Connie Temple, John M.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monro, Hector Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Hannam, John (Exeter) Montgomery, Fergus Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) More, Jasper Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Haselhurst, Alan Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Hastings, Stephen Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Tilney, John
Havers, Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hay, John Mudd, David Trew, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney Murton, Oscar Tugendhat, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hicks, Robert Neave, Airey Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Higgins, Terence L. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Vickers, Dame Joan
Hiley, Joseph Normanton, Tom Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Nott, John Walters, Dennis
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Onslow, Cranley Ward, Dame Irene
Holt, Miss Mary Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Warren, Kenneth
Hooson, Emlyn Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Weatherill, Bernard
Hordern, Peter Osborn, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Page, Graham (Crosby) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Howell, David (Guildford) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Percival, Ian Wilkinson, John
Hunt, John Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pink, R. Bonner Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pounder, Rafton Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
James, David Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Woodnutt, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Price, David (Eastleigh) Worsley, Marcus
Jessel, Toby Proudfoot, Wilfred Younger, Hn. George
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Raison, Timothy TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jopling, Michael Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Redmond, Robert Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Kellett. Mrs. Elaine
Abse, Leo Blenkinsop, Arthur Carmichael, Nell
Albu, Austen Boardman, H. (Leith) Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Booth, Albert Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ashton, Joe Bradley, Tom Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Atkinson, Norman Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Cohen, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Coleman, Donald
Barnett, Joel Brown,Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) Concannon, J. D.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Buchan, Norman Conlan, Bernard
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Bidwell, Sydney Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bishop, E. S. Cant, R. B. Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dalyell, Tam Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pendry, Tom
Davidson, Arthur Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Pentland, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Prescott, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Price, William (Rugby)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Judd, Frank Probert, Arthur
Deakins, Eric Kaufman, Gerald Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Kelley, Richard Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Kerr, Russell Rhodes, Geoffrey
Dempsey, James Kinnock, Neil Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Doig, Peter Lambie, David Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dormand, J. D. Lamond, James Robertson, John (Paisley)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Latham, Arthur Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lawson, George Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Duffy, A. E. P. Leadbitter, Ted Roper, John
Dunn, James A. Leonard, Dick Rose, Paul B.
Dunnett, Jack Lestor, Miss Joan Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Eadie, Alex Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Loughlin, Charles Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Ellis, Tom Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
English, Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Evans, Fred Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson Sillars, James
Fernyhough, E. McBride, Neil Silverman, Julius
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) McCann, John Skinner, Dennis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McCartney, Hugh Small, William
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) McElhone, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McGuire, Michael Spriggs, Leslie
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mackenzie, Gregor Stallard, A. W.
Foley, Maurice Mackie, John Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Foot, Michael Mackintosh, John P. Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Ford, Ben Maclennan, Robert Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Forrester, John McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Strang, Gavin
Fraser, John (Norwood) McNamara, J. Kevin Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Gilbert, Dr. John Marquand, David Swain, Thomas
Ginsburg, David Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Taverne, Dick
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Meacher, Michael Tinn, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Tomney, Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mendelson, John Torney, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mikardo, Ian Tuck, Raphael
Hamling, William Millan, Bruce Urwin, T. W.
Hardy, Peter Miller, Dr. M. S. Varley, Eric G.
Harper, Joseph Milne, Edward (Blyth) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Molloy, William Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wallace, George
Hattersley, Roy Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Watkins, David
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Weitzman, David
Heffer, Eric S. Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Wellbeloved, James
Hilton, W. S. Moyle, Roland Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Horam, John Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Murray, Ronald King Whitehead, Philip
Huckfield, Leslie Ogden, Eric Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) O'Halloran, Michael Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) O'Malley, Brian Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Orme, Stanley Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Oswald, Thomas Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hunter, Adam Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Woof, Robert
Janner, Greville Palmer, Arthur
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Parker, John (Dagenham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Mr. John Golding and
John, Brynmor Pavitt, Laurie Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.