§ 1. The sale of unlicensed premises shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Valuation Department of the Treasury.
§ 2. Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors, and will act on the instructions of the Secretary of State.
§ 3. The valuation of unlicensed premises shall be done by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue, with advice from the district valuer and the appropriate local authority or authorities.
§ 4. The sale of the licensed premises shall be carried out by the appointed independent estate agents.
§ 5. The valuation of such premises shall be made by the regional licensed property valuers of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue.
§ 6. Such valuations will be checked, confirmed or modified by the district valuer.
§ 7. Any house, office or shop shall be offered for sale by private treaty to the sitting tenant, or failing such sale, put up for public auction.
§ 8. The public houses shall be similarly offered for sale to the sitting tenant or manager, or failing such sale, by public auction.
§ 9. The hotels shall be sold individually by public auction after independent valuation and Treasury approval of price.
§ 10. In all cases of public auction, a reserve price shall be fixed, and no premises shall be sold below that price, without Treasury authority.
§ 11. In setting a reserve price full account shall be taken, apart from the value of the business as a going concern, of the site and development value of the property.
The Minister will be familiar with the purpose of these Amendments. He will be aware that the Bill still contains no proposals providing the machinery for the valuation and disposal of the property. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary dismissed Clauses 2 and 3 in six lines. He said:Clauses 2 and 3 are the operative Clauses. There is provision to enable the Secretary of State in disposing of premises to 'deem' a licence to be in existence, since technically at present the premises do not have to be licensed.That is all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the machinery for disposing of the properties. The Bill provided, and still provides, that the Secretary of State 1536 himself shall be responsible for disposing of them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-West (Mr. Callaghan) made some comments to which hon. Gentlemen opposite took great exception, when he said:Secondly, we take the strongest objection to the proposed method of disposal. We submit that the proposed method of disposal, which is to be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, must be changed in view of the financial payments which the intended beneficiaries of the Bill made to the Conservative Party's election funds. We shall expect changes in the Bill to safeguard the public interest in selling these assets. If they are not made, the Conservative Party, if not the Government, will lay themselves open to charges of corruption. I will return to that and demonstrate what I am saying in due course. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite need have no fear of that.That speech led to considerable abuse being heaped on my right hon. Friend's shoulders, and later on mine. I can take it as well as anybody, and give it, too.
It is significant that it was not until hear the end of the winding up speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in response to an interjection by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking. He said:I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to obtain an independent valuation to assist us in this operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1971; Vol 815, c. 969, 972, 1073.]If that intervention had not been made by my right hon. Friend that commitment might never have been entered into. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman questions that. The Secretary of State did not mention that in his speech. That was during the last two or three minutes of it.
In the Committee stage, which took a fair amount of time, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not make it clear, either by inference or by specific pledge, that these provisions which were spelt out in Committee would not be incorporated in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State said:I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman"—he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—that the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling"—1537 the selling of the pubs, hotels, and so on—to people who know something about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387.]Presumably the Secretaries of State knew nothing about it, but that was the provision in the original Bill. The implication was that the Ministers knew nothing about it, or at least they were suspect.
§ Mr. Waddington
The hon. Gentleman ought to treat the House with more respect. Is he seriously saying that because there is a provision in the Bill that such-and-such should happen at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it is later said that the Secretary of State will have some assistance in exercising his discretion, it is implied that the Secretary of State knows nothing about his business?
I am saying that because the Ministers were the leaders of a party which received thousands of pounds from the brewers, they were suspect when they were selling State property to their paymasters, and that because that charge stuck the undertaking was given by the Minister in Committee in the words that I am quoting. He said:…the Home Office and the Government accept"—he did not say "now accept"—entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it …".The inference to be drawn from that is that the Ministers either did not know, or would be suspect if they sought to sell to their financial backers.
No. The hon. Gentleman pops in and out of the Chamber like a grasshopper and expects to intervene to let his constituents know that he is here. The Minister said:…the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it, and we accept entirely the need to have an independent valuation of the assets for the purpose of sale.1538 He then went on to talk about how the Government were going to have independent valuers, independent estate agents, use the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, or the Treasury, or whoever it might be, and he addedthat it might take up to a year"—note the words, "up to a year"—to complete the disposal.and he spelled out the machinery in a speech that lasted for half an hour. Later be said:…I have had to explain to the Committee the Government's intentions …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387–9.]We all know what has happened to the Government's intentions in the last 12 months, but I shall return to that in a moment.
The new Schedule, Amendment No. 29, seeks to incorporate in the Bill the undertakings given by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office in the speech to which I have referred. I shall not spell out the details, but there was to be an independent valuation via the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue, the Government were to use district valuers, independent agents outside any Government Department, and so on. The hon. Gentleman the Minister went out of his way to say that, in order to be above suspicion. He told the Committee how the Government would deal with unlicensed premises. Independent estate agents would be used, licensed premises would be sold by joint agents, and there was to be a firm based in London—I do not know why it should be in London; these premises are in Carlisle, in Gretna, in Cromarty—and one in the North of England. Why not one in Scotland? The Minister is muttering. I think that he is a bit under the weather at the moment.
§ Mr. Carlisle
The hon. Gentleman asks, why not in Scotland? I dealt with how we were going to sell assets in Carlisle. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office later dealt with how we were going to deal with the sale of assets in Scotland. There would be no purpose in appointing Scottish agents to sell English assets in Carlisle.
One of the significant features of the Committee stage was the 1539 apparent loss of voice by the Junior Minister at the Scottish Office. In the latter part of that speech the Minister said that his hon. Friend would be glad to answer questions about the Scottish position. He went on to say how the premises would be sold, that sitting tenants would be given the first option and that failing that they would go to public auction. He wound up by saying that he had nothing to say on the Scottish position except that it would all be above board. Those are not his exact words, but he was anxious to convey that impression. In col. 389, as I have said, he said that these are at the moment still the Government's intentions. But they are not statutory obligations. When the Statute is being interpreted the court will refer to the law and not to intentions.
We have had experience in the last few weeks of the Prime Minister's intention to reduce prices at a stroke and of one of his Ministers going out of his way to say that the Prime Minister was joking and that the housewife should have known it. I wonder whether the brewers paid for his yacht, whether it should be called "Morning Hangover" instead of "Morning Cloud". It is rather sinister that, although the Government declare their honourable intentions over disposing of these assets, they will not put them into statutory form.
I want to refer to one or two what I consider relatively minor differences between the new Schedule and the Government's intentions. Paragraph 1 refers to the sale of unlicensed premises via an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury's Valuation Department. When the hon. Member made his declaration of intent, he did not refer to the Lord Chancellor and he may wonder why we do.
The answer is fairly simple. The Lord Chancellor is an honourable man, which is a rare character in the Tory Party. He went up to Carlisle and talked about establishing some kind of trust—
Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an independent view of these matters. He wanted a local interest. He said nothing about handing them over to the breweries, but he was in the upper echelons of the Tory Party and he knew how the funds were pouring into the Tory Party from the brewers. Now, he is a high official of the judiciary, and he should be brought in here.
Paragraph 2 refers to fully qualified chartered surveyors acting on the instructions of the Secretary of State, which again is different from what the hon. Member said. The reason for that is that, if a Minister is involved, he will be answerable to the House and we want the Government to be accountable to the House in these matters.
I will skip over paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the new Schedule, because they are substantially the same as the hon. Member proposed in Committee. We attach a good deal of importance to paragraph 9. In it we provide that the Treasury must approve a price. Paragraph 10 is linked with that; there we refer to the imposition of a reserve price. There was no indication in the Second Reading debate or in Committee that the Government had any intention of putting a reserve price on any or all of these properties. In other words, if the Government are stuck with them—if the Government are getting to the end of their tether and want to get rid of the stuff—they will sell the properties at knock-down prices. The Minister will then say, "It is in the national interest that we should get them off our backs." We think that that is entirely wrong and indefensible.
In paragraph 11 we ask that account be taken of the value of a business as a going concern, apart from the value of the site and the development value of the property. Earlier this afternoon, and in Committee, my right hon. Friend made the point that the most important asset in Carlisle is not so much the brewery or the hotels—or the public houses—but the sites. Most sites are in the centre of the city. In Committee and in the Second Reading debate the point was made that the tourist trade will have an increasing 1541 importance in the development of Carlisle, Cromarty, Gretna and similar areas. These sites will increase in value. They have an enormous potential. I have already referred to the potential of the site of the Central Hotel, in which my hon. Friend and I stayed. We regard it as important that such factors should be taken into account.
The Government ought to show that they are honourable. It is not sufficient for them to say that they are, because we do not believe them. Unless they say, "We will put it in black and white in the Bill", they will compound our suspicions. The conscience of the Government has been shown clearly in the Second Reading debate and in Committee, in dealing with this squalid little Measure.
§ Mr. Spriggs
Earlier this evening my hon. Friend came near to making a charge of corruption against the Government. Would he care to substantiate that and prove his point?
It would take me too long to do that. I made the charge in Committee and I repeat it now; this is a corrupt Measure—one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation that has ever appeared in this House. I put that on record in Committee, in a couple of columns, or more. I mentioned every brewer who had made contributions to the Tory Party in 1968, 1969 and 1970. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has put questions to the Government, who have steadily refused to answer them.
When the Labour Government were in office they gave information to the House That information is available only because of the Companies Act, which the Labour Government passed. We would not even know what contributions the brewers had made to the Tory Party unless that Act had been put upon the Statute Book. At that time, I asked Questions in the House and I received Answers from my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, but the present Government, who said, "We will have honest, open government—different from the last", have consistently refused to tell us how much the brewers are still paying to the Tory Party.
§ Mr. Ashton
Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) put down a Question, the Answer was that he should refer to a publication from Transport House, which listed these things, simply because the Minister had not the courage to list them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
That is the point I made in the Committee stage, and the Minister knows that very well. If he will now say, "We are not corrupt. We just happen to believe that it is in the interests of the nation that these properties should be given to the brewers, and it is nothing to do with the fact that the brewers gave us hundreds of thousands of pounds to win the last election", we would not believe him but it would be a frank admission of what happened, a statement of the facts. If the Government do not say that, I repeat the charge that this is a squalid, corrupt little Bill which ought not to be occupying the time of the House when we are faced with the problems of inflation, the Common Market and God knows what else.
§ Mr. Tom Boardman
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in playing out time on rather a sticky wicket and trying to make this feeble protest last for the two days that they requested. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me too. I should like to understand what, precisely, is the charge made.
§ Mr. Boardman
The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said that the breweries were not now interested in buying the houses and that what they were interested in was getting new licences, and that they had secured guarantees that they would get these licences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say whether that is the charge he makes or whether he is disagreeing with his right hon. Friend about the breweries not now wanting to buy the houses.
If I disagree with my right hon. Friend, it would not be for the first time nor the last time. But my right hon. Friend did not say that the brewers were not interested. He said, as I said in Committee, that some of the brewers have said that they were not 1543 interested. They have said that to keep the price down. That is the point. They are interested and we were told in Carlisle that before the election they were all up there casing the joint and finding out exactly how many outlets there were and what the pickings were for the vultures, the Tory Party supporters. The hon. Gentleman talks about being on a sticky wicket. He should read an article in the Guardian only yesterday entitledBeer traditions have gone for a Burton".The article mentions the slogans by which the brewers are selling beer, and this is what will happen in Carlisle, despite the independent valuers, the independent estate agents, most of whom are probably Tories anyhow. There is no question about them being independent. On the question of how honourable this exercise this will be, and what we shall be having sold there, the article saysWatney's Red is less bitter and sweeter than Red Barrel. It is a darker colour which leads some people to assume wrongly that it is stronger-bodied and more alcoholic; it has a creamier froth which laces the side of the glass as the beer is drunk.This is the effect of the legislation that the Government are now spending two days on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—two days of the valuable time of the House. The country is agog with excitement wondering whether its champagne glasses have been emptied in Luxembourg because we are passing the Carlisle Pub Bill and entering the E.E.C. No wonder the Government are losing by-elections and fear Macclesfield. No wonder the Prime Minister did not make any more life peers of Tory Members.
§ Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) rose—
§ Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that honour. Hon. Gentlemen can go and buy a pub in Carlisle. That is the only honour they will get. They will get it at a give-away price.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Carlisle rose—
§ Mr. Carlisle
Of course I am not attempting to prevent any hon. Member from speaking. I merely thought that it would be convenient to the House that I should speak now.
1544 I sat through several weeks of Committee deliberations on the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) often produces shafts that go home but that from time to time he misses with his cracks. The unfairest attack of all that he has made was his criticism just now when he described my speech of 30 minutes, in answer to an Opposition request that I should spell out in full detail how we propose to sell these assets, as "over-long". That criticism came from an hon. Member who spoke for an hour and a half on an Amendment dealing with the specific gravity of beer, which I am sure he will concede had nothing to do with the Bill. In fact, the hon. Gentleman got into some difficulty with the Chair towards the end of that speech. We expect hyperbole from him—for instance, his repeated accusations that this is a corrupt Bill—but that accusation and his other accusation about time are monstrous.
It is hypocritical to a degree of the hon. Gentleman of all hon. Members to accuse the Government of wasting the time of the House by spending two days on the Bill, because that request came from the Opposition. If the general public is concerned, as it should be, with the major issues facing the country, it should ask itself why the Opposition wish to take up an additional day of the time of the House on issues of this kind.
The hon. Member said that, with certain differences, the intention of the Amendment is to put into statutory form the undertakings I gave in Committee as to the method we would use in the sale of these assets. The hon. Gentleman's proposals are unacceptable, not only because they differ substantially in various degrees from the measures I outlined, but equally because it is unnecessary to give statutory form to a procedure which is a matter of ordinary efficient administration.
It is an extraordinary philosophy advanced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—it may be a philosophy that he learned as a member of the Labour Government—that unless something is written into statutory form it is not in any way binding on the Government and that a statement made in parliamentary proceedings and recorded in HANSARD as 1545 to the method by which the sale will be carried out is in no way to be relied upon and is in no way an honest statement. This attitude may spring from the right hon. Gentleman's own experience as a member of the Labour Cabinet.
It is not necessary to put into statutory form every statement of intention which is made by this Government. I am satisfied that there is no need to give statutory form to our intentions as expressed about the sale of these assets. To do so would not only be a completely new departure in any form of legislation but would be unsuitable.
I want to show how the proposals of the hon. Member for Fife, West are really politically motivated and not merely a desire to put our proposals into legislative form. First, he proposes that the unlicensed premises…shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor".His explanation is that he has chosen the Lord Chancellor because the Lord Chancellor is an honourable man. That is clearly intended to be a slur on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in suggesting that he is not an honourable man perfectly capable of appointing estate agents for this purpose. There can be no other purpose in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor.
Next, the hon. Gentleman says:Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors …".Presumably he is implying in general that we would appoint chartered surveyors who were not fully qualified. Indeed, he implies that there are chartered surveyors who are not fully qualified.
Then the hon. Gentleman comes to the question of valuation. He does not at any stage allow for the agents to be appointed to have the competence to make their own valuations. He suggests that the local authorities are more fitted for the task.
The hon. Gentleman says—and I am taking the major points—that all the premises must first be offered not only to the tenant but alternatively to the manager. We cannot accept that. But we do accept that the hotels will be sold individually by public auction. His suggestion that anything is added by saying 1546 that there should be Treasury approval of the price is ridiculous. I have made it clear that we will sell as advised by the agents whom we shall appoint. They will advise us as to the best and most appropriate means of selling. The hotels will be sold by public auction by reputable agents.
The hon. Gentleman said, "What of the independent estate agents? They will probably vote Tory as well." That is an extraordinary example of his attitude of mind. Apparently, anyone's commercial decisions, judgment and advice must be coloured by the way they vote at any particular election. It may well be that the majority of estate agents, being intelligent and sensible people, vote Conservative.
§ Mr. Carlisle
To suggest that when they are asked for independent advice estate agents will colour it to suit the political views of those who seek it is ridiculous.
I will spell out again the method of sale which we envisage. The hon. Member for Fife, West does not seem to have got it very clear. We will sell the unlicensed premises through independent estate agents, offering them at or near the valuation set upon them by independent estate agents, checked by the district valuer, to the sitting tenants in the first place. For licensed premises, we will appoint two sets of agents—a London firm and a northern firm. I have been asked, "Why a London firm?" There is a good reason. The sale of licensed premises is not the type of work which every estate agent is involved in, and it is important to see that we have firms qualified by experience in this type of work. The hotels will then be sold by public auction.
I said that the 40 smaller public houses would be offered at or near valuation price and that the rest would be sold in accordance with advice. I explained how we would obtain independent agents. The valuation office of the Inland Revenue would write to the President of 1547 the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and ask him to recommend suitable agents to achieve that task. That has been done. We have received a reply from the President of the Royal Institute, and, in accordance with his advice, we have written to those agents whom he recommended.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock criticised the comment that the method of sale was fair, just and above suspicion. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), who has suddenly taken an interest in the latter stages of this Bill, has jumped up from time to time saying "Answer the charge of corruption". There is no charge of corruption. Let me make it clear that it is only in the eyes of bigoted hon. Members opposite that this method of sale could in any way be said to be a corrupt method.
§ Sir Arthur Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
In many ways this Amendment deals with the nub of our objection to the Bill. We propose to divide on this Amendment. This represents our last attempt in the history of the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State being given the power to dispose of property on terms which he, subjectively, considers to be expedient in the public interest.
The process of valuation should be written into the Bill, as should the intention
§ to accept a particular form of valuation. The close association of the Conservative Party with the brewers' interests is well known. In these circumstances, and because of that, it is uncouth to put no safeguards into the Bill to deal with the valuation of the property of which the Secretary of State is to dispose.
§ That is our charge. The Conservative Party at other times would have shown a much greater sensitivity on this issue than it has shown tonight, and it is in certain respects an unmistakable mark of its decline. We make the serious charge that the Government have not written in the safeguards which are necessary. That is why, with all the earnestness at my command. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide on this important issue.
§ Mr. Spriggs
The Under-Secretary charged me with coming into these proceedings at a late stage. I remind him that I attended a number of Committee meetings to acquaint myself with the progress of the Bill. I further remind him that I have been in the Chamber almost all day.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 166.1549
|Division No. 392.]||AYES||[9.59 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hunter, Adam|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Ashton, Joe||Ellis, Tom||Janner, Greville|
|Atkinson, Norman||Evans, Fred||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Beaney, Alan||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Fretcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Ford, Ben||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Freeson, Reginald||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Booth, Albert||Gilbert, Dr. John||Kelley, Richard|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Ginsburg, David||Kinnock, Neil|
|Bradley, Tom||Golding, John||Lamond, James|
|Buchan, Norman||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Latham, Arthur|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Gourlay, Hairy||Lawson, George|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Leonard, Dick|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Hamling, William||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hardy, Peter||Loughlin, Charles|
|Oavies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Harper, Joseph||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||McBride, Neil|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Heffer, Eric S.||McCann, John|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Hooson, Emlyn||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Horam, John||Maclennan, Robert|
|Dormand, J. D.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Huckfield, Leslie||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|Driberg, Tom||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Dunn, James A.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Marsden, F.|
|Eadie, Alex||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Meacher, Michael||Price, William (Rugby)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Mendelson, John||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Tinn, dames|
|Millan, Bruce||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Torney, Tom|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Ogden, Eric||Sandelson, Neville||Weitzman, David|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Wellbeloved, James|
|O'MaNey, Brian||Sillars, James||Whitlock, William|
|Orme, Stanley||Silverman, Julius||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Spriggs, Leslie||Woof, Robert|
|Pendry, Tom||Stallard, A. W.|
|Pentland, Norman||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Perry, Ernest G.||Taverne, Dick||Mr. Ernest Armstrong and|
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)||Mr. Alan Fitch.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Glyn, Dr. Aran||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Gower, Raymond||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Mudd, David|
|Astor, John||Gray, Hamish||Murton, Oscar|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Green, Alan||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Grieve, Percy||Neave, Airey|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Grylls, Michael||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Gurden, Harold||Normanton, Tom|
|Benyon, W.||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Nott, John|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Onslow, Cranley|
|Biffen, John||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Body, Richard||Haselhurst, Alan||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Boscawen, Robert||Hawkins, Paul||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Hayhoe, Barney||Peel, John|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Bray, Ronald||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Brewis, John||Holland, Philip||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Holt, Miss Mary||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Hornby, Richard||Raison, Timothy|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Redmond, Robert|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Buck, Antony||James, David||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Rost, Peter|
|Churchill, W. S.|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Kilfedder, James||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Clegg, Walter||Kinsey, J. R.||Simeons, Charles|
|Cooke, Robert||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Cormack, Patrick||Knox, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Costain, A. P.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Speed, Keith|
|Critchley, Julian Crouch, David||Le Marchant, Spencer||Spence, John|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sproat, Iain|
|Curran, Charles||Loveridge, John||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||McCrindle, R. A.||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James||McLaren, Martin||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Dean, Paul||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||McMaster, Stanley||Tebbit, Norman|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Mather, Carol||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Mawby, Ray||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Emery, Peter||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Eyre, Reginald||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Waddington, David|
|Fell, Anthony||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Wilkinson, John|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Moate, Roger||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Molyneaux, James||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Fowler, Norman||Money, Ernle|
|Fox, Marcus||Monks, Mrs. Connie||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Fry, Peter||Monro, Hector||Mr. Tim Fortescue and|
|Gardner, Edward||Montgomery, Fergus||Mr. Bernard Weatherill.|
|Gibson-Watt, David||More, Jasper|
|It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.|