HC Deb 20 July 1970 vol 804 cc165-96

10 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)

I beg to move, That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 by Order dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act. The House, having approved the Proclamation, now turns to the Regulations although during the past several hours, as you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members will be aware, we have been dealing with these Regulations, They spring, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said in her speech this afternoon, inevitably from the emergency and the Emergency Powers Act—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult to address the House against a background of noise. This is Part 2 of an important debate. Sir Peter Rawlinson.

The Attorney-General

I was saying that these regulations spring inevitably, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, from the emergency and the Emergency Power Act, which provides for the protection of the community in cases of emergency.

I have been told by right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has questions to pose concerning these Regulations. There is no doubt that these powers are extensive and comprehensive. It would indeed be a poor House of Commons which did not look closely at such powers as are being given to the Executive as the requirements are to secure the essentials of life of the community. That is the very purpose of the Act. It necessarily involves the assumption of powers to a wide extent, but once there is an emergency, necessarily extraordinary powers are needed.

I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) dislike of these powers. I do not believe any hon. Member would like or does like them. They would not be here as hon. Members if they did like them. The powers could not be liked by a lawyer trained in and inheriting English Common Law but, certainly, the emergency powers are very essential. A duty arising from the Act is imposed on the Government to take these necessary powers. As the House probably knows, they are to last for one calendar month. They are dated 16th July, which is the date of the Proclamation, although they were made on 17th July. Therefore, before 16th August, which happens to be a Sunday, there has to be a second Proclamation if they are to continue. Therefore, any holiday which any hon. or right hon. Member has, he must appreciate, is at very considerable risk.

These powers, which are very wide and extensive, are precautionary powers. I emphasise that. They are precautionary powers which must be, and will be, used with discretion and care. Many in this House will be conversant with the powers set out in the Regulations. Any hon. Member who was in the last Parliament will know them only too well because they were before this House only four years ago when they were presented by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), assisted, of course, by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. They were comprehensive Regulations. I must make quite clear the debt which I and others owe to the right hon. Gentleman for the form of the Regulations which are before the House on this occasion. With exceptions, I shall show that they are only very slightly different from the Regulations which were presented and approved in the last Parliament.

As hon. Members will see, the Regulations are divided into groups for the ports, vehicles, public services, consumption and distribution—which deal with fuel and food—transport services, possession of chattels and land, billeting and offences.

I will deal briefly with the Regulation concerned with ports, Regulation No. 1. This is to ensure the best use of the ports and to avoid congestion in the ports. The Minister of Transport can give directions to a port authority "or any other person". I make clear to the House that in that context of the use of those words "or any other person" is a person with controlling or managerial functions. This does not provide for industrial conscription, which is particularly and expressly prevented by Section 1(1) of the 1920 Act.

Regulation 1(4) empowers the Minister of Transport to appoint port emergency committees and various committees and persons designated by them. Under Regulation 2, which is a new one, if a direction is not complied with—that is, if there is a failure or a refusal, for instance to move a vehicle or a ship—the Minister can take such steps as he considers appropriate, and, if in default, the person who refuses to move a ship, for instance, must pay the reasonable charges, quite apart from committing an offence.

Regulation 3 enables the Minister to allow employers other than those licensed and employees other than those registered to be employed in the docks.

Therefore, the new elements in these Regulations are as follows. First, there is Regulation 2, which enables persons who are in default to be dealt with. Regulation 12, which provides for a relaxation of regulations concerning the conveyance by road of petroleum-spirit and certain other dangerous substances, is also a new Regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred to this. The reason for this Regulation is that there may not be a sufficient number of vehicles of particular specification and design which can deal with the carriage of petroleum and it may be necessary to use other vehicles.

Regulation 22, which is the third of the new Regulations, enables directions to be given to public service vehicle operators as to passengers to be carried or road services to be provided; for instance, if coaches could not be hired or compelled, they could be requisitioned.

Regulation 24 is basically the same as it was in the 1966 Regulations but now includes passengers, whereas formerly it dealt only with goods.

Regulation 19 has been referred to [Interruption.] This confers the power to regulate the maximum price of food by means of an Order. No one pretends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. There are too many sustained dialogues going on in the Chamber. If hon. Members wish to carry on a long conversation, it would be fairer to do it outside the Chamber.

The Attorney-General

I was dealing with Regulation 19, Mr. Speaker. This Regulation empowers the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to regulate the maximum price of food by means of an Order. A similar power was conferred in 1966 by Regulation 18. It was then thought essential to have this power. No one pretends that it would be easy to administer in the comprehensive way that, for instance, food rationing or such matters of control were effected during the war. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the previous debate, a declaration by Order of the fixing of a price would, indeed, have an effect. People who disregarded it would have to accept the consequences of a breach of the Regulation.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I do not dispute that a Government announcement might inhibit some people from increasing prices, but there have been indications that increased prices have applied at Smithfield Market and Covent Garden Market in the last day or two. As I pointed out earlier, there is no real point in taking powers unless there is some machinery by which those powers can be enforced. A Statutory Instrument is a very long-term thing and not a short-term thing.

The Attorney-General

Nevertheless, it is a power, and it is a power which can be used and which should be used. It was thought advisable to have it in 1966, and it is now thought advisable that this power should be given to the Minister. This is something which arises directly from the emergency—the denial of supplies owing to the strike which creates the scarcity and, therefore, the possibility that people will increase, or attempt to increase, prices to get a better return on a scarce commodity.

Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)

All the other Regulations, apart from this one, not only give the powers but provide for the manner in which they should be exercised. This Regulation merely gives the power and leaves the manner in which it should be exercised entirely to the Minister. Why?

The Attorney-General

The power of the Minister is, and can only be, to make the Statutory Instrument, to set out what the price shall be and to determine that people comply with it. I have not pretended, and nobody pretended in 1966, that this would be as effective as some of the other powers given in the Regulations. I make that clear. I do not know how useful it is to make it clear or for the House to go into the matter in detail. We propose that the Minister should take and exercise the power by Statutory Instrument.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the question of trespass and pickets. He said that we had emergency powers in 1926 and 1966. He forgot 1949, when neither he nor I was a Member, but I think that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was a Member. A power similar to the one which we propose was used in the unofficial dock strike of 1949. Regulation 29(2) applies in respect of anything prejudicial to public safety. With regard to Regulation 29(1), the proviso to Regulation 34(1) says that no person shall be guilty of any offence if he is taking part in, or persuading any persons to take part in, a strike. The picketing which the hon. Gentleman had in mind would not be an offence under the Regulation and certainly would not be prejudicial to public safety. If someone takes part in, or persuades any person to take part in, a strike, it is not an offence.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Surely the phrase "peacefully persuading" is a matter of interpetation. Suppose a number of pickets picketed lorry drivers going into a dock. That could be interpreted as not peaceful picketing. It could be dealt with under Regulation 29. The Regulation is wide open.

The Attorney-General

The hon. Gentleman is over-pessimistic. The proviso refers to peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike". The normal, legal form of picketing would be a question of peacefully persuading people, and it would not be an offence. The proviso to Regulation 34(1), as with all the Regulations and the Act, is designed so that there shall be no industrial conscription and no criminal offence arising from taking part in a strike. The Regulation is designed to deal with the mischief of someone loitering and trespassing in such a way as to be prejudicial to public safety and is not concerned with lawful pursuits such as peacefully persuading a person to take part in a strike.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

We appreciate the Attorney-General's courtesy in giving way. Could not both the point on loitering and the point on striking—and, indeed, the whole of these Regulations—be very dangerous in view of Regulation 32: Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence. Therefore, a constable—not a sergeant, not a police inspector but an ordinary constable—can arrest anyone at any time, provided that he has suspicion that any of the Regulations are being broken.

The Attorney-General

The reference to a constable refers not so much to rank as to position; even an officer of superior rank is a constable for this purpose. The hon. Member, however, is quite right to point out these matters. A constable is here given the power to arrest without warrant … with reasonable cause". It is extensive. I opened what I had to say to the House by saying that it is right always to look at such Regulations. It would be unworthy of the House of Commons if it did not do so.

Certainly, this is giving an extended power to arrest without warrant. Nevertheless, it has to be "with reasonable cause". The constable must have his reasonable cause to suspect, and then he can arrest. In the same way, he has to know—and he will know—that it is not an offence for anybody to take part in, or peacefully persuade any other person or persons to take part in, a strike.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East called these powers that we are taking tyrannical, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said that nobody likes them. Of course, nobody likes them—they give increased and extensive powers—but, as I have said, an emergency calls for emergency measures.

Regulations 28 to 31 are the four which create new criminal offences. The 27 others are really provisions enabling Ministers to take executive action, and they are all identical to those of 1966. Nothing, I repeat, makes it an offence to take part in a strike.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Kensington, North)


The Attorney-General

The maximum penalties for offences against the Regulations—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If an hon. Member wishes to intervene, it is not sufficient to stand. He must ask the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he may intervene.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I was seeking, Mr. Speaker, to catch the Attorney-General's eye.

The Attorney-General

I will certainly give way to the hon. Member. I did not notice his rising.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. What concerns me about Regulation 34 is the word "only"— that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these Regulations by reason only of his taking part in …". I appreciate that that is a substantial safeguard, but the law of conspiracy could be invoked in these circumstances. I should welcome an assurance from the Attorney-General that the law of conspiracy is not likely to be invoked, in circumstances which are likely to arise in the course of a strike, to create an offence for something which would not be an offence having regard to that proviso but which could become an offence by reason of the law of conspiracy.

The Attorney-General

I certainly assure the hon. Member that no member of the Government would play any part towards creating any offence by way of an agreement—which is conspiracy, as it were—to join together peacefully to persuade another person or persons to take part in a strike. They are entitled so to do; that is the law of the country, and that has not altered. A conspiracy to commit an unlawful act is another matter and would be dealt with by the criminal law outside the Regulations.

I was dealing with the maximum penalties. On summary conviction, for an offence against the Regulations, they are three months imprisonment or £100, and, of course, the suspended sentence would apply, but the criminal law applies to any offence which is committed and which is outside these Regulations, but which is in itself a criminal offence.

Generally, therefore, these Regulations provide powers for Ministers to do a wide range of executive acts, and they are executive acts to execute the purpose of the Proclamation. The duty of Ministers in the circumstances of an emergency is to safeguard the life of the community, and this, as hon. Members have found in other circumstances in other years, is essential to the life of the community. The purpose of these Regulations is the safeguarding of the life of the community, and it is in those circumstances that I ask the House to approve.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

The importance of scrutinising with anxious care the need for the undoubtedly draconian powers which the Regulations we are debating confer on Ministers has been stressed, very rightly, on both sides of the House. The Regulations themselves and their use are justifiable only if they are really necessary as a means of maintaining the essentials of life of the community at large. Any user of these Regulations for any lesser or different purpose would be quite unjustifiable, and we shall be watching carefully, when the powers under the Regulations are exercised, if they are exercised, that this fundamental principle is maintained.

The second point I wish to emphasise is that the right to strike is, of course, a legal right, and nothing in these Regulations should be construed as infringing that right. Indeed, the proviso to Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, states expressly that taking part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person … to take part in a strike is perfectly lawful. We gave anxious thought to this aspect of the problem in 1966, and saw to it that the safeguard was provided also in the proviso to Regulation 34 of the Regulations.

However, there are a number of questions which I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the Government's understanding of some of these Regulations and their intentions with regard to some of them. I am glad that at an early stage he disposed of the anxiety which arose from the terms of Regulation 1, which gives powers to the Minister of Transport to give directions to a port authority or any other person as to a number of matters, including the loading and unloading of ships. Some have fears that this would empower a port authority, acting under the Minister's directions, to order a docker to load or unload a ship. If that were right, that would be a flagrant act of strike breaking. In the debate in 1966 I expressed the view that that was a wrong construction, and I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed that view tonight. If a direction were given to a docker on strike he would be entitled to reject it, and if he did so, he would not be committing an offence, under the Regulations.

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give a similar assurance as to Regulation 2 and confirm that it does not give the Minister of Transport power to require dockers to perform any particular task. Will he generally make it clear that the Regulations are not directed against those on strike or the unions to which they belong?

Before I come to questions about the potential exercise of these powers, there are one or two other Regulations to which I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred about which I should like to ask one or two questions.

First, in the section of the Regulations dealing with the relaxation of restrictions as to use of road vehicles, Regulation 4 deals with goods vehicle licences. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that Regulation does not waive the requirements of the Road Traffic Acts about the hours of driving for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles, nor the requirements to keep records of drivers' hours of work? Will he give an assurance that these requirements will continue in force?

Regulation 7, on the face of it, looks pretty alarming, in that it permits the Minister of Transport to authorise the use of road vehicles which do not comply with the Construction and Use Regulations made under the Road Traffic Acts. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate the restrictions contemplated if that power is exercised. I hope he does not contemplate that a lot of junk and dangerous vehicles will, under the excuse of emergency, be put upon the road.

As to Regulation 11, dealing with third-party insurance, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, although that Regulation allows the Minister of Transport to waive some of the formalities connected with third-party insurance, it will not waive the necessity for third-party insurance itself. I notice, in passing, that the old Regulation 12 gave the Postmaster-General certain powers with regard to postal and telegraphic services. What has happened about that? I am not advocating any extension of regulation, but it would be interesting to see what has filled that void.

In regard to the potential use of these powers, obviously any use of them will have to be watched most anxiously. As has been said more than once in this debate, very much is at stake in this serious strike situation for all who are concerned—the dockers, the employers and, above all, the community at large. There is a great deal of tinder lying about, and inflammatory situations can easily occur or be created. As was said most eloquently at the beginning of the debate, at the end of the day the strike can be settled only by discussion and negotiation round the table. It will not be settled by threats or any show of force or intimidation, and the exercise of restraint is obviously vital.

It is for this reason that, very properly, a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised anxious questions about the penal powers which are contained in the Regulations. It gave me great anxiety in 1966 to be a party to introducing them in that emergency situation. The House has noted the assurance of the Attorney-General that no action will be taken under the powers to restrict peaceful picketing. We shall keep a watchful eye to ensure that that assurance is fulfilled in the act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) asked some searching questions about the provisions of Regulation 29(2). That is a hardy perennial which has been in the Regulations since 1926. I confess that my conscience does not feel particularly happy that it appeared in the 1966 Regulations, but at least I take comfort from the fact that I am not aware that the rule of evidence referred to in that Regulation has ever been used. I suspect that it is unlikely that it would be used. The circumstances of its user are, at any rate, circumscribed in the Regulation, but it is obviously a power which will have to be carefully watched in practice.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked some questions about Regulation 32, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond to my right hon. Friend's request that the Home Office should give clear guidance to the police that the use of this power of arrest without warrant can conceivably be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

My right hon. and learned Friend has said several times that these powers and their possible application will have to be carefully watched. As the House will not be sitting, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend from where he will be watching?

Sir Elwyn Jones

This is one of the problems to which I shall be referring in a moment on the subject of the accountability of the Government to Parliament for what is going to be done. I am afraid that it rather looks as if once again a considerable burden will fall upon the Press as the watchdogs of the exercise of these powers. However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give some indication to the House of some machinery for reporting progress, so to speak, if these powers are used, and the manner in which they are used.

This crisis strikes us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has reminded us, at a time when Parliament will be going into recess and when the probing process of Parliamentary Questions will not be available to us. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are confronted with a real problem, of the solution of which we have had no indication at all from the Government as yet. For instance, what is proposed about the publicity for the orders that may be issued if these powers are to be exercised? Are they to be published in the Gazette? Is there to be some particular machinery of publication so that the public, the Press and Parliament may know? May we have some light on this matter?

One of the difficulties for the House is that, as I see it, very few, if any, of the Orders which Ministers are empowered to make under these Regulations need any parliamentary sanction at all. I noted with some interest when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with Regulation 19 that he appeared to think that before the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could make an Order for fixing maximum prices a Statutory Instrument would be necessary.

However, before I come to that precise point, which is of some importance, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he winds up the debate, to deal with the real concern that we have as to how the House, the public and the Press are to be informed about how these powers are to be used, if they are used, so that there is proper accounting for the exercise of these draconian powers.

I now turn to Regulation 19, and I must confess that the House has been given no satisfaction whatever on what the Government have in mind with regard to the control of food and foodstuff prices. There is undoubtedly mounting evidence that some such control and regulation is necessary. The Daily Mail reported on Friday on the meat situation that markets throughout the country report sharp increases in wholesale prices. I ask the Attorney-General whether that is right.

What is being done about what I see described in tonight's Evening Standard as the "Orange and apple racket"? There is a most interesting account there which reads as follows: The 'oranges and apples scandal" broke as Agriculture Minister. Mr. James Prior, was on a walk-about at Covent Garden. One retailer complained that South African apples had jumped 16s. for a 40 1b. box—an increase of 6d. a pound to the housewife. After his tour, Mr. Prior gave this advice to the High Street shoppers: 'Shop around … perhaps keep off oranges, apples, grapes and bananas for a few days.' "Why not give up food altogether", he might have said. Then the alternatives were quoted—melons, cherries, plums and pears. It was not quite as bad as Marie Antoinette telling the people to eat cake, but it does not look very much like a dynamic policy for restricting price inflation.

We know that the Prime Minister says he relies on competition to control prices in the private sector. Is that the philosophy which is to apply to this situation? It is obvious that competition in the private sector is already causing anxiety to the housewife in her purchases.

The Attorney-General

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist me and the House by saying how he contemplated control of prices in 1966?

Sir Elwyn Jones

Happily, there was no evidence at that time of racketeers making corners in food, as there appears to be some evidence today. Whatever plans and arrangements the Labour Administration had, I ask the Attorney-General and his colleagues, who for a short time have the burden of government cast upon them, to say what they are doing about this matter.

First, what machinery have they available for reporting price increases in the first instance, because unless they know what is going on they cannot say whether or not action needs to be taken? Obviously, a casual walk-about is an inadequate method of informing the Government. May we be told what enforcement machinery is necessary? What will be the sanctions? If food supplies run short, have the Government plans to control supplies and distribution of foodstuffs?

I come back to a critical question, in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in opening this part of the debate. He contemplates that the Minister of Agriculture's Order will be brought in by way of a Statutory Instrument. When will it be laid? If it is to be effective, it will have to be laid before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Is it to be an Order that will require the affirmative approval of the House, or will it be by way of an Order that can merely be prayed against?

These are important questions. I pose them because, as at present advised, the House will be rising this week. It means that if no action is taken before then, this potential threat to the standard of living and the cost of living will proceed unabated.

Mr. Loughlin

In case I do not succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would deal with one point. In the case of a Statutory Instrument, I understand that some time must elapse in which it has to lie on the Table. There are 28 days. How can a Statutory Instrument be made?

Sir Elwyn Jones

It is on these matters that it is imperative that we have answers before the debate is concluded. Obviously, they are matters of great importance.

Finally, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the question which was put to me at a similar stage of the 1966 debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an explicit assurance that if these Regulations are approved they will be revoked as soon as the strike ends? Obviously, they should not continue in force a day longer than strictly necessary.

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate. Brief speeches will help.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

I have missed only one speech in today's proceedings, and I must report to those hon. Members who have not been here that this has been a truly remarkable business. It has become even more remarkable in the last 40 minutes, in the course of which we have listened to an exchange between two of the highest-paid lawyers in Britain—at least, they would be if they earned their livings elsewhere than in this place. Having listened to them, I cannot decide who is Alice and who is the looking glass.

The Attorney-General sought advice from his sparring partner since my right hon. and learned Friend from Wales is the author of these Regulations, having designed them and written part of them. My right hon. and learned Friend then asked the Attorney-General what they meant. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not know what they mean, what chance have we?

Sir Elwyn Jones

I was asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks they mean what I think they mean.

Mr. Atkinson

I can understand my right hon. and learned Friend's confusion. They describe each other as "learned", and they go on with this charade.

What really has happened is that the Attorney-General has taken from the appropriate pigeon hole all the notes left by the retiring Government. All the interpretations are there. But that is not enough. We have to spend 40 minutes listening to two of the highest-paid lawyers in the land trying to advise each other what the Regulations are all about and how they will be used.

I accept that a number of hon. Members want to speak, and I will make only three brief points. First, we should explain why we shall divide shortly on the Question. We argue that we on this side look forward to a satisfactory settlement of this dispute, and not to satisfactory Regulations. Because of that, the Regulations are secondary to the settlement of the dispute, and we have argued that consistently.

The second point is that the powers cannot be separated. No matter how many learned Gentlemen we have to advise us, they cannot tell us how to separate the powers. We have to take them in tow. If we do not like some of them, the only course of action available to us is to vote against the lot. We cannot discriminate between them.

My right hon. and learned Friend from Wales says that these are important matters, and we must look at them—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), though originally from Wales, is in fact a London Member and, I understand, a dockers' Member?

Sir Elwyn Jones

That is quite right.

Mr. Atkinson

I apologise if my right hon. and learned Friend is not from Wales—

Sir Elwyn Jones

I entirely repudiate that I am not from Wales. I come from Llanelli, and I am proud of it.

Mr. Atkinson

I am grateful for that clarification. As has been pointed out, it is the only clarification that we will get tonight.

We cannot separate the Regulations. Therefore, we must vote against the whole of them as they stand, and that certainly is the intention of many of my hon. Friends.

Another point which has run through the debate—it has been a curiously lethargic debate throughout—is that the Government are seeking powers for only the seventh time in 50 years. This is a historic occasion. But one would imagine, from the kind of chatting up that goes on in these curious down key, woolly almost conversational, speeches to which we have listened—excluding one or two of my hon. Friends—that we are doing this kind of thing seven times a week.

The point is that many hon. Gentlemen—in fact, all bar one—who have participated in the debate tonight have explained that the Government require these powers so that Ministers can watch the situation. Every one has said that the Ministers are proficient to do this. In other words, these are powers to enable the Government to become spectators; they are spectators' regulations. All hon. Members opposite have emphasised that they want the Government to stand on the touch lines to watch what is going on. In other words, it is a spectators' charter. It is certainly not the dockers' charter, to which reference was made earlier.

Another point about the spectators concerns how these Regulations will apply. I should like to refer to Regulations 19 and 32, and I will lump them together, as the Attorney-General did when he referred to them. Those two regulations go together.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

And Regulation 34.

Mr. Atkinson

I am taking Regulations 32 and 19 together, excluding comments about Regulation 34 for the moment.

Regulation 19 deals with the control of food prices. Irrespective of visits to Covent Garden—incidentally it was not clear from the Minister's remarks which Covent Garden he visited—the situation now facing the Government concerning the Regulations is that if they are serious about their intention to prevent profiteering throughout the country they must do something with the Regulations which they now have. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must tell the country that if oranges go up another 2d. the price will be regulated at whatever figure he fixes, and if butchers increase the price of meat by, say, a shilling a pound the price of meat will be regulated. So if fruiterers put up the price of oranges by 2d. or butchers put up the price of meat by a shilling, they are contravening the Regulations if the Minister decides that that is profiteering.

If we link Regulation 32 with that, it means that every police officer in the country will be alerted to watch the butchers and the fruiterers to see whether their prices exceed those laid down by the Minister. That is what the Regulations say. Therefore, we must have a bobby stationed outside each greengrocer's and each butcher's shop watching what he does regarding prices.

According to Regulation 32—let us have a ship's lawyer attempting to advise the Attorney-General on this matter—the police will be obliged to arrest the greengrocer or the butcher if he exceeds the price laid down by the Minister. The Regulation says that the greengrocer or the butcher may be arrested on suspicion, etc., because the evidence is there for all to see. The Minister of Agriculture will lay down the prices, and the police will be there to carry out his instructions to see that prices do not rise above the levels set by him. That is the situation. This is a pretty good Regulation. It would be a good thing if we could get the police on to the side of the housewife. We would all be laughing. But the Government have no intention of doing that.

The first instruction issued by the Home Secretary to the police will be that they are not to worry too much about what his colleague the Minister of Agriculture says. The Home Secretary will have to explain to the police that this is a question not of law but of psychology. We shall tell the greengrocer and butcher that they must not lark about with prices, but at the same time the police will be told that they must not enforce the Regulations passed by the House. That is the position, and that is the instruction which the Home Secretary will issue. He will tell the police to ignore the instructions given to the country by the Minister of Agriculture.

The other Regulation on which I wish to comment is that concerning the use of troops. What concerns us in all industrial relations, and particularly in the docks, is the position which will arise when military personnel meet civilians. This is where controversy is likely to arise. This is where the dispute will spread. This is where all the irritants will come into the dispute. The Government can move troops in to unload cargoes, but those cargoes have then to be loaded on to some sort of vehicle to be moved further afield, either by road or rail. It is at that point that the military lads will meet civilians, and that is where the dispute will arise. Our argument is that the Regulation which gives the Government power to use troops will make the dispute worse and might even prolong it. Military and civilian personnel will have to meet to carry out what is, after all, an extremely complex operation. In our view this Regulation permitting the use of troops will worsen the situation, and that is why we shall vote against it.

I made the point earlier about the employers refusing to negotiate, and our objection is to the Government's taking powers of this kind while that situation exists. I am thinking particularly of Regulation 29.

Whatever has been said about Alice Through the Looking Glass, one thing that has emerged from today's debate is that the Government's view is that if there is a national dock dispute, an official strike it the docks, there must, of necessity, be emergency powers of this kind. The Government are saying that there are no particular reasons for taking these powers, but they are further saying—and this has been supported by Front Bench spokesmen on this side of the House—that if there is a dock strike it must of necessity give rise to an emergency situation.

It means that we are saying to the T.U.C. that if from now on there is a dispute at the docks, or anywhere else, emergency powers will be taken to deal with it, and, therefore, from now on the two things go together. If there is any sort of dispute involving the docks or shipping, the Government of the day will automatically bring the emergency powers into being. That is what we are saying and that is what the Government are saying—that one thing follows the other. We have reached a milestone in industrial relations—certainly in docks and shipping—in that now, whenever disputes of this kind arise, emergency powers will immediately be brought in. That is the point that we have to learn from this non-debate and idiotic argument that has gone on for so much of the day.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that the position is worse than he has stated. This is not only a non-debate; in effect, there is collusion between the two Front Benches. What now happens, apparently, is that when a new Government come in they use, in support of their claim, the argument that the previous Government did the same thing before. My hon Friend is quite right, but he should have explained that the Regulations were not only drawn up by my right hon. Friend; they were written by the same people in the same office, and no doubt the same pens were used. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that when we examine the Regulations we find that many things contained therein have nothing to do with the docks dispute.

May we be told why, because there is a docks dispute, we are to allow on the road—at least, the Regulations permit this—road vehicles which are, in effect, both unlicensed and in an unsatisfactory state of repair, possibly with damaged tyres, and so on? Where are these vans and lorries? Why should they be allowed on the roads? As far as I know, at the moment no lorries are being kept off the roads. I am talking about lorries in perfect mechanical order. The dockers may be on strike, but the lorries are still there. If any lorries are to be used, I assume that they will be mechanically perfect. Why, therefore, should there be a relaxation in terms of the mechanical fitness of these vehicles? Going through the Regulations we find a whole series of matters that have nothing to do with any dispute in the docks.

I intervened on the question of food prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is right in saying that an Order could be brought in allowing 1s. on meat or 2d. a lb. on something else. Why cannot the Minister say today that he will introduce an Order under Regulation 19 providing that no food price must be higher than it was last Friday, and that if the price of any food in a retail shop is higher than it was last Friday, when the strike started, the persons concerned will be liable to the penalties mentioned in the Order?

Perhaps my hon. Friend was a little jocular when he quoted Regulation 32, but he is quite right; that Regulation would give any police constable power to arrest without warrant. Any housewife can tell a police constable "This price"—be it of meat, oranges or apples—"was so much last Friday and now it has gone up by 6d." There is no clear explanation of what the Minister will do about food prices. We are only told what he might do.

The other Regulations are clearly, and perhaps dangerously, defined. A person can be arrested for trespassing, loitering and a host of other things. A police constable need only have "reasonable cause". He will decide if an offence has been committed and, without warrant, he can arrest a person if he has reasonable cause to suspect him of being guilty of an offence.

What will happen to all these people who might be arrested? Will they be in custody without trial, and, if so, for how long? [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman for Down, South (Captain Orr) is being funny, but I thought I heard him say "Twenty years". Perhaps he was being facetious, or perhaps this sort of thing happens in Northern Ireland.

At present the lawyers work so slowly that people are kept under arrest for up to six months without trial. Indeed, some trials take two or three years to come on, after which people are sometimes found not guilty. Now people can be arrested on the suspicion of a police constable and kept under arrest without trial.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis

This is happening now, without these Regulations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, coming from Northern Ireland, perhaps supports this sort of thing; he and his party. We have never supported Regulations of this type. [Interruption.] I suppose the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just returned from one of his calling places and finds this an amusing matter. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite find this amusing. We are debating an extremely serious matter, and it is unfortunate that not one of the hon. Gentlemen now occupying the back benches opposite was present for the earlier debate.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)


Mr. Lewis

With the exception, that is, of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), whom I recollect seeing in his place earlier.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North) rose

Mr. Lewis

Am I doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice?

Mr. Iremonger

Yes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recollects seeing me here, too.

Mr. Lewis

I would never consciously do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. Like me, he will be aware that there were only two hon. Gentlemen opposite present for the earlier debate out of his hon. Friends who now occupy the benches opposite. Apart from those two, all the others might as well leave and return to those places where they can imbibe while we debate this important subject. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. Hon. Members opposite have come in at the last moment and now laugh about what is a serious matter.

We have had no explanation from the Attorney-General or the ex-Attorney-General about Regulation 32. I do not know who wrote it. If hon. Members opposite had been here earlier, they would have heard that the new Attorney-General has put in some new things and that the old Attorney-General has left in some of the old, and I do not think that either knows which is old and which new.

To me, the Regulation means that if any of my hon. Friends or any of my trade union friends were on the dock and walking around, he could be arrested by a policeman on suspicion. Even if it were the Minister of Agriculture walking around the docks instead of Covent Garden, a policeman could say, "I think you are loitering with intent and acting suspiciously", and he could arrest him. He would not do so if it were the Minister of Agriculture, but he might do it if it were some of my hon. Friends. A policeman might excuse some of the Tories, but he would take serious action against any of my hon. Friends.

I cannot support these Regulations, and if, as I hope, my hon. Friends force the matter to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby against the Regulations.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

The Attorney-General said that these were wide and far-reaching powers which would be used with discretion. I should like to cite the instance of what happened to a constituent of mine when these powers were not used with discretion.

This constituent deals in meat and is an exporter of meat. After six months' negotiation, he secured an order on the Continent for braising beef, what we call cow beef, a commodity not welcomed by housewives in this country. He received an export permit from the Board of Trade on Friday and it was dated 17th July.

He prepared his shipment and put it on a lorry on Saturday morning to undertake the 300-mile journey to Dover. During Friday, the Board of Trade issued an order prohibiting the export of meat and poultry. Incidentally, the relevant Press hand-out reached the Library of the House of Commons only at 8.30 this evening, and then only after the Library had arranged for it and then only after a messenger had gone from the House to the Board of Trade to get the Press hand-out.

When he telephoned the Board of Trade, my constituent was told that a notice had been issued on the B.B.C. He is a busy man and he cannot listen to all radio programmes or read all the newspapers. On Sunday, at about 2 a.m., his lorry arrived at Dover to be loaded aboard a ship. My constituent was then told about the order which had come into effect at midnight on Saturday. Because of that, he was unable to make arrangements for the refrigeration of his cargo to deal with it adequately on Monday. Is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food prepared to buy this consignment of beef at the same price as that at which my constituent would have exported it had he been allowed to do so?

He is in a further difficult position because he has two other cargoes lined up, one for Tuesday and one for Thursday this week. The Minister has agreed to look into the facts of this case. I hope that my constituent will not suffer any loss as a result of the Order being introduced in this way. On the evidence, I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that my constituent had very little chance of complying with the Order, particularly when he received an export licence fom the Board of Trade dated 17th July and the Order was made on 16th July. He appreciates that it is now necessary to ban the export of meat and poultry from this country. Nevertheless, I hope that something can be done to ensure that he will not be worse off than if he had been able to execute the order, certainly in respect of the shipment he took to Dover on Sunday.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

I am not very much concerned about whose hand wrote what. I have no particular criticism of my right hon. and learned friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) as an author. I am concerned about the situation in which the House finds itself in being asked to pass these Regulations.

This is an unprecedented situation. As at present proposed by the Government, the House is to adjourn on 24th July. Therefore, there will be removed from the scene the watchful eyes of hon. Members on the Front and back benches and the representatives of those who work in the docks. That is a strong constitutional point. It is made all the more serious by the fact that there has been no adequate reply from the Government about their intentions in trying to bring the two sides together again.

An important function of the House of Commons, when there is a dispute of this seriousness and when by extraordinary Regulations many of the ordinary rights of the subject are temporarily abrogated, is that every day the House should be able to compare not only the application of these Regulations but the whole policy that lies behind them and the performance of the Government on the original issue. The House will be in no position to do so. So far there has been no serious consideration of this point by any Front Bench speaker.

We have had no indication yet, although several hon. Members, including myself, have invited the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to intervene, whether the Government will now insist that the employers should move from their rigid position not to enter negotiations while the dockers continue to strike. No answer has been given to that question. If the House were sitting later than this week, the Government would be bombarded every day with questions as to their attitude on this, either by Private Notice Question or demands for a statement. There is no easy answer which any hon. Member can give in this situation. Are we to part with the power of the House to retain its influence over the Government by day-to-day questioning and to accept these Regulations as if they were nothing but the ordinary application of day-to-day law, which manifestly they are not?

My third point is equally serious. The Government have made no suggestion, not even for debate, whether it might not be advisable to postpone the adjournment date of the House. I know that in the debate on the Motion to approve the dates for a recess there is a good deal of badinage on both sides and hon. Members know that a date has been agreed upon; but surely this is an extraordinary situation. Regulations of this type are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, on an average asked for not more often than once in ten years.

We are told—this is the formula used time and again by the Leader of the House—that the House will adjourn on 24th July provided that the business of the House has been completed. That phrase covers a Bill, Regulations about the white fish industry and many other things that are important but the importance of which cannot be compared with that of the Regulations for which the Government now seek approval. Therefore, it was well within the Government's powers to say to the House, "There is no law about adjourning on 24th July". In fact, it is a week earlier than we have adjourned many times in recent years. We have continued until 31st July or 2nd August. It was the Government's duty to suggest through the usual channels that the House should not adjourn so early but that it should remain in session so that it could watch and check the Government day by day, not only in the application of these Regulations but in their whole policy which forms the basis of these Regulations.

Fourthly, one of the leaders of one of the parties—the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union—has told the country that he thinks that it is premature that the Government should have these powers at this stage. As it is common ground that the psychological approach to these matters is of the greatest importance in a sensitive dispute of this kind, that of itself is a serious criticism of the Government's haste. The Government could say in reply, "But we are adjourning on 24th July. Therefore, we must take this action now".

This brings me back to my point: if the only reason the Government have to do it now is that they have suggested an early date for the adjournment, let them scrap the early date of adjournment. A proper approach to the problem is far more important than our going away seven or fourteen days early.

There is one other point which matters a great deal to many of my hon. Friends. There have been rumours and suggestions that the Government have already contemplated using troops a little earlier than they now say they might. Over the last four days there have been a number of reports in reputable newspapers to the effect that it was intended to introduce troops for a limited task as early as this weekend. There have been counter-reports that the leaders of the union and the employers' representatives approached the Government and said, "Do not do it". That increases my concern, because the Government, before they were advised to the contrary by those directly concerned, were hastily contemplating the introduction of troops. We cannot trust the Government to apply the right timetable even from their own point of view.

It is on those serious grounds that I and some of my hon. Friends, to indicate to the country and to the Government our concern and disquiet, will challenge the Regulations by our vote tonight. If the Regulations were passed unanimously without any vote, that concern and disquiet would not be so effectively known.

11.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General

With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. The matters raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) may well be matters for consideration in a subsequent debate which the House will have concerning the date of the adjournment for the recess, but I shall confine myself—I know that the hon. Member will understand why—to the Regulations.

The hon. Member has expressed his intention to vote against the Regulations. So be it. As I made clear from the start, however, the Regulations arise from an emergency. The House has accepted that there is an emergency and, therefore, emergency Regulations are needed to deal with an emergency situation.

With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) about the sending of meat to the Continent, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture was present during my hon. Friend's speech and noted the points that were made. I must, however, say to my hon. Friend that if, at a time when we find it difficult to unload perishable goods and there is difficulty in getting meat distributed to the people of this country, we were to engage in sending meat to the Continent, most people would think that we were living in cloud-cuckoo land. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's point concerning his constituent and the way in which the matter has been dealt with has been heard by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) spoke about relaxing the Regulations concerning lorries. These Regulations arise from the fact that where there is a dock strike, where goods cannot be moved by sea, they have to be moved by alternative methods of transport. It is right, therefore, for the Government to look ahead to the situation in which the goods have to be moved by road when previously they might have been moved by sea. The Regulations provide that vehicles which in ordinary circumstances would not normally be used for the carriage of goods can be used in the especial circumstances of an emergency.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Dangerous vehicles.

The Attorney-General

It is a matter not so much of the danger of vehicles but of the kind and type of vehicle which can be used for a particular purpose.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member on Regulation 32, the normal law would, of course, apply and a person who had been arrested would be charged and brought before a magistrate forthwith, as, indeed, he would have to be. I can only say that Regulation 32 is a power which will be used with the greatest reluctance. It is, of course, a reserve power only and it would be used only where the need particularly arose, such as preventing the continuing commission of an offence or preventing an offender from escaping.

In reply to the question which I was asked about Regulation 1, I confirm again that the persons in question are persons with controlling or managerial functions. That is certainly the context and I suggest that the words are clear.

Regulation 2 certainly does not give power to permit anybody to force dockers who are on strike to perform any task, and it is not directed against strikers or the unions.

On Regulation 4, I was asked a question concerning goods vehicles and licences. I confirm that it does not mean that the hours of driving of any driver are now so extended as to ignore the previous Regulation, nor does it affect the need and the necessity to keep records.

With regard to Regulation 7 and the question of construction and use, the kind of vehicles that it might be used to bring into use are vehicles which, I am informed, are called dumpers. They are particular and peculiar vehicles which may require to be used for a certain purpose.

Regulation 11 waives the formalities of third party insurance but it certainly does not waive the need for third party insurance. All that it means is that if a vehicle is being used for a purpose outside its normal purpose—if, for example, a vehicle which normally was used for pleasure or family use was being used for another purpose under directions because of the emergency—it would be covered by the insurance.

I was asked about the Post Office and the Postmaster-General and Regulation 12. That provision was produced under the Post Office Act establishing the Post Office. That is now a separate entity and has power to suspend services, and, therefore, there was no need for that provision.

I turn back again to Regulation 29(2). As the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham. South (Sir Elwyn Jones) pointed out, that has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. Regulation 2 is a very remarkable Regulation. Of course, it is not unknown in criminal law, and it involves a suspected person or incorrigible rogue and the Vagrancy Act; it is a form of evidential procedure.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that these Regulations are regarded by the House as being in many ways very unsatisfactory indeed. Would he give the House the assurance that there will be a very early review of them, so that if we have to have such Regulations again they can at least be presented in a better form?

The Attorney-General

I do not accept from the hon. and learned Gentleman that they are unsatisfactory in their form. What I said to the House was that whenever it has to impose on the law of this country such Regulations and such law—and that, of course, is only in the case of an emergency—the House should always look carefully at them when giving the Government such powers. It should look at them with the very greatest care. That was what I warned the House about. But undoubtedly, when there is an emergency we have to have these powers, and it is not the form of the powers of which I warned the House; I warned the House to recognise what it was doing when it gave the Executive these powers. It is by reason of the fact of the emergency that the Government have to take these powers and are given these powers by the House of Commons.

Finally, in conclusion of this part of the debate, I would only repeat what others have said, and as I said when I began this debate: it is because there is an emergency and because there is the responsibility and the duty upon the Government to ensure that the life of the community continues that these powers and these Regulations are being sought by the Government, and in these circumstances I ask the House to approve.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to answer many searching questions which were raised on the control of prices?

The Attorney-General

Certainly. I dealt first of all with that. Control of prices, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is through power, which is given by order, to regulate them. That power was not used in 1966 but its use was contemplated. I can only suggest that to spell it out in detail might not be an advisable thing to do at this particular time.

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)

Oh, come.

The Attorney-General

I have explained to those hon. Gentlemen who were not earlier here that no one pretends that this is a task which can be easily performed. It was a power which was taken in 1966 because it had a particular purpose and it was thought to be useful. It is a power which we seek to take now in 1970, and I should not have thought there was an hon. Member in the House who did not want us to have power, if prices increased, to do something to control them.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Will the Government introduce a Statutory Instrument to do that? The right hon. and learned Gentleman informed the House that that would be necessary, to give effect to this power to control maximum prices. Is such an order to be introduced?

The Attorney-General

It may be necessary. I do not propose to assert now that it will be done—if it will be done. I suggest that the power should be given to the Minister so to do. This power arises from the fact that supplies to this country are being denied because there is an emergency arising from the dock strike, and it is only right and sensible that the Administration should be given these powers.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 28.

Division No. 8.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Adley, Robert Bruce-Gardyne, J. Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Bryan, Paul Digby, Simon Wingfield
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Dixon, Piers
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Burden, F. A. Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Astor, John Carlisle, Mark Drayson, G. B.
Atkins, Humphrey Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Awdry, Daniel Channon, Paul Dykes, Hugh
Baker, W. H. K. Chapman, Sydney Eden, Sir John
Balniel, Lord Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Batsford, Brian Chichester-Clark, R. Emery, Peter
Bell, Ronald Churchill, W. S. Eyre, Reginald
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Clark, William (Surrey, East) Farr, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fell, Anthony
Benyon, W. Clegg, Walter Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Berry, Hon. Anthony Cockeram, Eric Fidler, Michael
Biffen, John Cooke, Robert Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Biggs-Davison, John Coombs, Derek Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Blaker, Peter Cooper, A. E. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Cordle, John Fookes, Miss Janet
Boscawen, R. T. Corfield, F. V. Fortescue, Tim
Bossom, Sir Clive Cormack, Patrick Foster, Sir John
Bowden, Andrew Costain, A P. Fowler, Norman
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Crouch, David Fox, Marcus
Braine, Bernard Curran, Charles Fry, Peter
Bray, Ronald Dalkeith, Earl of Gardner, Edward
Brewis, John Davies, John (Knutsford) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Dean, Paul Goodhart, Philip
Goodhew, Victor Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Gorst, John Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Gower, Raymond Longden, Gilbert Ridsdale, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Loveridge, J. Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Gray, Hamish McAdden, Sir Stephen Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Green, Alan MacArthur, Ian Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Grieve, Percy McCrindle, R. A. Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) McLaren, Martin Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grylls, Michael Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Rost, Peter
Gummer, Selwyn McMaster, Stanley Royle, Anthony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Russell, Sir Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe) McNair-Wilson, Michael Scott, Nicholas
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Scott-Hopkins, James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Madel, David Sharples, Richard
Hannam, John (Exeter) Maginnis, John E. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Shelton, William (Clapham)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mather, Carol Simeons, Charles
Haselhurst, Alan Maude, Angus Sinclair, Sir George
Hastings, Stephen Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Skeet, T. H. H.
Havers, Michael Mawby, Ray Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hawkins, Paul Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Soref, Harold
Hay, John Meyer, Sir Anthony Speed, Keith
Hayhoe, Barney Mills, Peter (Torrington) Spence, John
Heseltine, Michael Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Stainton, Keith
Hicks, Robert Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stanbrook, Ivor
Higgins, Terence L. Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Hiley, Joseph Moate, Roger Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Money, Ernie D. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Monro, Hector Stokes, John
Holland, Philip Montgomery, Fergus Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Holt, Miss Mary Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Sutcliffe, John
Hordern, Peter Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Tapsell, Peter
Hornby, Richard Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Mudd, David Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Murton, Oscar Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Howell, David (Guildford) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North) Neave, Airey Tebbit, Norman
Hunt, John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Iremonger, T. L. Normanton, Tom Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nott, John Tilney, John
James, David Onslow, Cranley Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Trew, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Jessel, Toby Osborn, John van Straubenzee, W. R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Owen, Idris (Stockport, North) Vaughan, Dr. G[...]rard
Jones, Arthur (Northants, South) Page, Graham (Crosby) Waddington, David
Jopling, Michael Page, John (Harrow, W.) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Peel, John Wall, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald Percival, Ian Walters, Dennis
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Warren, Kenneth
Kerby, Capt. Henry Pike, Miss Mervyn Weatherill, Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony Pink, R. Bonner White, Roger (Gravesend)
Kilfedder, James Pounder, Rafton Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kimball, Marcus Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Wiggin, Jerry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South) Price, David (Eastleigh) Wilkinson, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R. Proudfoot, Wilfred Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Kirk, Peter Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Woodnutt, Mark
Kitson, Timothy Quennell, Miss J. M. Worsley, Marcus
Knox, David Raison, Timothy Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Lambton, Antony Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Younger, Hon. George
Lane, David Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John Redmond, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East) Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Le Marchant, Spencer Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover) Mr. Jasper More.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ashton, Joe Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Skinner, Dennis
Atkinson, Norman Kerr, Russell Spriggs, Leslie
Bidwell, Sydney Kinnock, Neil Stallard, A. W.
Booth, Albert Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) McNamara, J. Kevin Swain, Thomas
Carmichael, Neil Mendelson, John Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Orme, Stanley
Delargy, H. J. Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Driberg, Tom Pavitt, Laurie Mr. Eric Heffer and
Evans, Fred Prescott, John Mr. Ian Mikardo.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)


That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act

1920 by Order dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, shall continue in force, subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.