HC Deb 24 June 1971 vol 819 cc1632-63
Mr. Ross

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 5 after 'him', insert 'in the Gretna district'.

It would be not only convenient but helpful, in that it would make my meaning clear, if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 7, after 'purposes', insert 'and all property held by him in the Cromarty Firth State Management district for the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1959 shall be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board '. The purpose of this Amendment is to leave alone, to suffer the Government's actions, that part of the State management district in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—that is the Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area the properties, hotels and public houses should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

5.15 p.m.

For the purposes of greater accuracy, I produce here a document published by the Board not long ago which has a foreword signed by the Secretary of State. The first question is whether this body should embark on this kind of venture of taking over property which is important for tourism, and developing and running. Has it the necessary executive expertise?

It is interesting to point out that the Board was established To enable the Highlands and Islands to play a more effective part in the economic and social development of the nation. To this end, the Board is to concert, promote, assist or undertake measures for the economic or social development of the seven Highland counties. That includes Ross and Cromarty.

Unprecedented powers were given by the House. I was Secretary of State at the time. There was not one vote against it. This document says: To help it realise its objectives, the Board has been given finance and a wide range of powers. It has its own grants and loans scheme, the first in the United Kingdom administered by a regional organisation. The power to take equity has been added to the range of … incentives … This allows the Board to enter into partnership with commercial and industrial concerns and to broaden the capital structure of a company … The Board also provides a range of advisory and other services; it is equipped to provide advice on management, accountancy, production, plant layout, marketing and publicity. The Board has positive powers to clear land, erect buildings, carry on businesses and commission investigations and surveys. So if the Secretary of State wants to get rid of these properties because the State should not be in the liquor trade, in the Cromarty Firth, his solution is easy, obvious and desirable—to hand it over to this Board which has been given a special function, of which a considerable part deals with tourism.

The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will confirm that, since its establishment in November, 1965, the Board has created a special place for itself in the Highlands. In Ross-shire in 1965–69, it has sponsored or assisted 259 projects. The Board has invested about £1¼ million and assisted many projects related to tourism and the sort of enterprises that have been badly needed in this part of the country.

We should not forget that hotels have been built with the assistance of the Government. One has been opened in Craignure on the Island of Mull and another will shortly be opened on the Island of Barra. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that another is to be opened on Shetland, but that may be a privately owned one and I do not want to be led astray.

Is it not fitting that the public houses and establishments about which we are speaking should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board? After all, anybody who buys them will no doubt go to the Board and seek support for them. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has no desire to see the brewers come into this area, although they are already there, as he will know from the lesson we tried to give him in Committee about the findings of the Monopolies Commission.

The brewers own 86 per cent. of the public houses in England and Wales and they are now making inroads into the outlets in Scotland. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I want that to happen, and to protect the position in Scotland in general, and in his area in particular, my solution might be the answer. Have the Government discussed my proposal with the local advisory committee or the Board?

This is a developing area. The Invergordon and Cromarty Firth area was selected during the first war as an experimental growth point, and it was not purely about this part of the country and the problem of drink that Lloyd George said in 1916 that drink was doing more damage to the war effort than all the German submarines put together. People who were alien to the district crowded in. It was an experiment which worked and everybody recognises that it has been a success.

Everything went well until about 1960, when the lairds got busy and suggested that this State business should be handed over to private enterprise—and by that they meant the brewers. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite hope that local people will come into this business, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty fears that eventually because brewers' money will be involved, the brewers will take a more direct interest. My suggestion may be a way out for the Minister and the Government.

We should not forget that of the many people who crowd into this area, some are there for only a time. The aluminium smelter is coming into production and the area is changing. It will become, I hope increasingly, a sort of industrial hub of this part of Scotland. It is all the more important that this experiment should continue, perhaps in a new form, and by handing it over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board a satisfactory solution may be achieved, because the Board has been commissioned by all parties in this House to carry out this sort of task.

In the short time the Board has been in existence, it has achieved an incredible amount. The number of applications approved for grants and loans from, among other things, manufacturing industry, tourism, catering, transport, fisheries, and agriculture and horticulture totalled 1,500 up to November, 1970, so that another six months' of work must be added to that total. Loans and grants worth about £7½ million have been given.

Since the State is changing the area, it is right that this body, which is doing so much for the area, should be entrusted with the management of these properties and continue with an experiment which has proved successful. Certain hotels and public houses in this vicinity came under my control for a while. It staggers me to think that people are suggesting that they should not continue to be involved with the State. These properties were run by a special department of the Scottish Office, and not many civil ser-cants were involved, and then by the agency. A profit has been made in this area and it is clear that while the Government are prepared to destroy Upper Clyde Shipbuilders because they are making a loss, they are only too ready to hand to their friends an enterprise which is making a profit.

The prices charged in these hotels and public houses bear favourable comparison with the prices in similar establishments in Scotland. Most people in the area were content to leave things as they were. They wanted to see expansion in the locality. When I became Secretary of State I found that the people who had hitherto been holding up expansion were the Treasury, under a Tory Government, because of increasing pressure on the Tories to take the very step that is now being proposed, though in the past the Home Secretary has prevented it from happening.

If my words are not believed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the silent senator, the hon. Member for Dumfries, let them read the comments of Lord Drumalbyn in another place. They will see that the Scottish Tories are anxious to destroy this form of State management yet in the past Home Secretaries have restrained them. It has been a case of the lairds and the lackeys, and the Tories in Scotland have always been the lairds.

The Secretary of State leads the Scottish Tory Party in this House, but he leads only a few hon. Members. We have 43 of the 71 Scottish seats. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no mandate to do anything in Scotland, because the Scottish people have rejected them.

I will not repeat the arguments we adduced on this subject in Committee. My suggestion forms the basis of an entirely new Amendment and I am prepared to leave the position as it stands in the Bill in respect of the Annan and Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area, the properties should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. This would be to the benefit of the Government and the nation, because it would reduce the amount of money that would have to be found in view of the profits that would be made. Where the State, by pouring in money, is improving an area, some of the return should come to the State.

5.30 p.m.

I put this matter seriously and I hope that the Under-Secretary, who suggested that we had started the debate in an atmosphere of agreement, will look at it seriously. I am sure that it would commend itself as a practical proposition to many people in Scotland and to many in the Cromarty area.

I do not know to what extent the Under-Secretary has consulted his right hon. Friend about this matter and what further consultations have taken place in that part of the world. I ask him not to reject the Amendment out of hand. I would not press it if he asks us to withdraw it so that he can consider it again and take action in another place—though he would have a devil of a job in another place, because that is where the enemy of State management is; that is where the beer barons are. We have never regarded them as friends of Scotland.

The Government should seriously consider the Amendment. It is practical and worth while, and we would be putting the properties into the hands of people who are themselves giving advice to other people about how to run them and people who are being entrusted by the Government to build and to manage hotels in different parts of the country. I know that they have decided to lease certain of the new hotels they are building, but they could do the same thing here, and we would achieve the result desired by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that of local people managing these properties. What could be better than local people managing them under the ownership of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? This is the way out. I am sure that it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and it would certainly satisfy my hon. Friends.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I rise briefly to support the Amendment. It is widely recognised in the Highlands that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's efforts to revitalise the area in which the Cromarty Firth State management district exists have brought considerable benefit and development to that area. The proposal contained in the Amendment seems to introduce no very new departure for the Board, for it has already gone into the tourist business in a major way in constructing new hotels and in assisting other local interests to develop hotels in the Highland counties for which it has the prime responsibility of economic development.

The prospect of these hotels and other licensed premises falling into the hands of those who, perhaps, do not share the local understandings of the problems and potentialities of this area for tourism, and who may be more interested in turning a fast buck, is one which must cause all of us who are concerned about Highland development to pause. It is also recognised that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's grant and loan scheme has done excellent work and has backed many projects which have brought new jobs to the Highlands.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the amount of money spent by the Board and the number of jobs it has provided. But what is also plain is that the scheme is beginning, to a certain extent, to run out of steam and that there is a need for a new departure in the sense that the Board ought to take more of an initiative in establishing new industries. It has the expertise, the management capabilities, the accountants on its staff and, above all, a capacity to judge the abilities of those who live in the area to take over and run enterprises which the Board is promoting and financing.

Consequently, the Board would be eminently well placed to embark upon the scheme put forward in the Amendment as part of a revitalised drive to fulfil the vision contained in the plans for the development of the Moray Firth area. Those plans have run out of steam, to some extent, since the present Government came to power and the momentum which was provided by the decision of the former Labour Government to set up the aluminium smelter has sadly fallen behind.

It would be a useful demonstration of the Government's commitment to the vision of the Moray Firth development plan, in its widest context, if they were to take very seriously the proposal put forward in the Amendment. The Highlands and Islands Development Board may very well decide that it does not think it fitting to run and manage these hotels and other licensed properties directly. It might choose the method of leasing, which it has in other cases. But the Board would be better placed to make a sounder judgment as to who would run these premises in the best interests of the area than the Secretary of State at the distance of St. Andrew's House. That they be run in the interests of the area must be the prime objective of all concerned about the proposal in the Bill.

The proposals have very little merit. There is some evidence that the existence of these management districts is, perhaps, in a sense, an historical anomaly. But that is not sufficient reason to do away with them if the system is working very well. However, it is not open to me, on the Amendment, to go into the principle which has led the Government to give such an extraordinarily high priority to what is essentially a very minor Measure. When we are faced with crushing unemployment in Scotland and with a record rise in unemployment in June, it is almost inconceivable that we should be debating such a puny Measure.

Mr. John Stokes (Oldbury and Halesowen)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is not an important Measure and that there are more valuable subjects to occupy the time of the House, perhaps I could ask him and his hon. Friends why they took such an unconscionable length of time not only over the Committee stage but also by putting down all these Amendments and arranging for a two-day debate.

Mr. Ross

This is not our Bill; it is yours.

Mr. Maclennan

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about Scotland. I hope that he will make his own representations to his Government and find out from them if they have Measures which they will bring before the House to remedy the situation. They have given no word of them to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the second day of the debate was given out of Opposition time at the behest of the Opposition? If he thinks it is so unimportant, could he explain what their great interest is in this matter?

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman cannot slide out of the Government's responsiblities in that way. The Oposition make the best use of the time available to enable issues which are presented by the Government to be adequately debated. The Opposition are faced with frequent attempts by the Government to push through measures which, although they are relatively minor in the framework of the country as a whole, are very important for the areas concerned. This matter is important for the area of Ross and Cromarty.

That does not detract from the importance for the House of recognising the framework in which the Government have thought it right to bring forward the Bill as one of their top legislative priorities for Scotland. No one can argue—I doubt if the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) would have the face to argue—that the Bill will profoundly alter the face of even Ross and Cromarty, but far less of Scotland as a whole.

My argument is that the Government have deprived by stealth the Highlands and Islands Development Board of the power of initiative to change the economy of the Highlands area for which it has responsibility. There is a growing concern throughout the Highlands that the activities of the Board will be increasingly cramped. I cite as an illustration of this the fact that since the General Election not one new industrial project has come to my constituency, despite the fact that in the previous year no fewer than five new factories were opened.

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend should not whisper that. He has no idea how lucky he is. In view of what is happening in Scotland as a whole his constituency is lucky not to have lost some ventures.

Mr. Maclennan

I know that in a speech in Scotland my right hon. Friend said that we had lost a factory at Thurso. It is extraordinary that at such a time this should be the Government's measure of development for the Highlands and that since the Government took office this is the only opportunity that the House has had to debate the Highlands in any shape or form, save for an Adjournment debate that I initiated. Is this a measure of the interest that the Government have in the development of the Highlands?

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

What will be the amount of saving for the Highlands following the halving of selective employment tax?

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not followed my point. We have not been given an opportunity to debate his Government's policy for the area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. Hon. Members must restrain themselves a little. I understand that we are dealing mainly with public houses, not with general economic policy.

Mr. Maclennan

With due deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tourism has considerable importance in the economy, particularly in this area, which has been designated by the Highlands and Islands Development. Board as one of its key development areas. I am anxious to elicit the Government's attitude to the Board's rôle in this matter.

The Board has rightly enjoyed great prestige, but the Government are embarked on a course which can damage the Board, and which, by a process of stealth, will undermine the Board's influence to help the Highlands, and particularly this area. It is no secret that in this area there are interests which have from the start sought to destroy the Board. It is very much in the hope that the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity of demonstrating that these fears for the future of the Board are unjustified that I commend the Amendment to the Government.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

I am, as hon. Members opposite know, a man of immense moderation. When I was, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in charge of this Department in Scotland and I visited the areas, the headline the next day was— Pub tour on a quarter of a pint". This proves my measure of moderation, but even my moderation quails before that of my right hon. Friend who, to try to get some glimmer of response from the Government, has halved what our demands should be and has tackled only the question of the Cromarty area and left Gretna to some of the wolves represented by hon. Members opposite. So this is a very modest demand that we make.

I have refrained from taking part in these debates till now, but I am impelled to enter this debate. Above all, the Scottish section of this Government have got themselves into an appalling fix. One of the great problems which has been posed by this most meretricous of Bills, was the involvement of the Tory Party with the brewers. As the Tory Party is financed to such an extent by the brewers, and considering that as its first piece of legislation it brings in a Measure to flog State property to the brewers, and as there is no security written into the Bill as to how the assets are to be disposed of, we are right to be suspicious.

In Scotland we have even more reason to be suspicious. There is a story about bottles flying at a football match and someone ducking as the bottles come over. His companion says "Do not worry. It will not hit you unless your name is on the bottle". "That is just a trouble", he said," he said; "My name is McEwan".

The Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party is not only "McEwan" but, as the Government Whip has just pointed out, his name is also "Younger"—William McEwan Younger. There is beer dripping from every syllable.

An Amendment which the Government should have accepted clearly set out the method by which these assets should be disposed of. If that had been written into the Bill suspicion would have been removed, but every time we raise this point hon. Members opposite say that they are above suspicion. But they never take any action to deal with that suspicion. The opportunity was given last night in an Amendment setting out one method of disposing of the suspicion.

We are presented with a blank cheque, and it is always very foolish to accept a blank cheque. When it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party it is careless not to look at it twice. And when it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party in relation to brewers it is positively criminal not to do so.

The Government have missed their opportunity. The Under-Secretary said frankly in Committee: The simple point is whether we shall achieve in our method of sale the degree of impartiality and professional expertise we require. Good. But he also said: Commercial considerations are likely to arise no matter how the properties are sold."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 418.] Of course commercial considerations arise, but the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to write in a method so that my suspicion, which 5 million people in Scotland share, can be removed.

The Amendment is a way out for one part of the State management areas, though not the Gretna district. I only regret that we do not have the same kind of development mechanism there as we have with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Board is the most advanced piece of planning mechanism this country has ever developed. Far from its being over-used, the trouble is that, if anything, we under-used it while we were in power. We tend to be moderate in government, unlike the Right-wing barbarians opposite. I mean by "barbarians" a group of people—

Mr. MacArthur

I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that his party when in government had abused the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I assume that he means they did so by imposing on the Highlands selective employment tax, which took far more out of them than the Board was ever able to put in.

Mr. Buchan

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to get back on to the one subject that he has talked about for the past 12 months. I thought that he was rising to object to what I said about the Right-wing barbarians. I was going on to define "barbarians" as people who assist in the destruction of civilisation, as in the Government's destruction of welfare milk, the introduction of museum charges and so on. In the one area where we have developed a planning mechanism with real powers we are beginning to see a waste of effort, as the drive and impetus that came with the creation of the Board goes out of the Highlands and Islands. I said not that we had abused the Board but that we had under-used it. We should have been a great deal tougher in using it. I hope that the next time we are in power we shall take a leaf from the Conservative Party's book and express some of our ideas more forcefully and use the full powers we have given to the Board.

We want to deal with some of the barons, whether beer or land barons. A recent Fabian pamphlet "Acreocracy" published in Scotland tells of the ownership of the huge estates. The Duke of Argyll has 140,000 acres in the County of Perth. The huge acreage in Scotland owned by individuals is twice the size of the four cities of Scotland. The connection between the beer and land barons is close. Since the power of land possession is holding up so much development in the Highland areas, it is right that we should be moving the Board towards dealing with that.

Here we are making a modest, moderate demand. We say that the mechanism exists which can remove suspicion from the Government, a mechanism whereby public property can be transferred into an existing board, established to develop the well being and the interests of the people in the community.

We should not be arguing about handing the scheme over to private buyers but arguing with the Treasury to get the right amount of public expenditure into the State management district to develop it properly in the interests of tourism. Ross and Cromarty is one of the developing areas in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should remember that that is because of the policies of the last Government, now destroyed by the policy of his own party.

With the expected increase in population, and the resulting rich pickings, the brewers come along, and that is wrong. As even Lloyd-George said, it is not right that values which are increased because of social action should be allowed to flow into private pockets. When potential value of hotels and establishments of that kind is increasing because of public action and expenditure from the pockets of ordinary people, it is not right that just at that moment of development the potential profit should be transferred to the greedy hands of the brewers. In view of the great Calvinist background of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I hope that he will see the matter as an engagement of conscience, as it is, and support us on the side of the angels.

I have been disturbed by the Government's failure to rid themselves of the charge of corruption, the suspicion that I and others have on this matter. Over the past 12 months they have turned the Palace of Westminster into a kind of oriental bazaar in which an auction has been going on—B.E.A., North Sea gas and even education. The Secretary of State for Education has suggested that vending machines for soft drinks should be put in schools in place of welfare milk, an astonishing concept. There is also the question of Thomas Cook, an undertaking that is related to the Bill, because Thomas Cook started in business by organising temperance outings. The Government had their beady eyes on Thomas Cook, and now they have them on beer. We wonder why. They say that it has nothing to do with the involvement of the brewers. If it has nothing to do with the funds they obtained for their General Election campaign from the Youngers and others, it has to do with either political ideology or political nepotism. That is why they protest so much. They do not know the difference between political nepotism and political ideology. Even worse, I have a feeling that political nepotism is their political ideology. Hence the shoddiness of the proposal before us.

The Government can get away from all the charges by understanding that we have a public body free of such suspicions, pledged to the development and welfare of the people of the Highland areas. Let them take their courage in both hands and tell the Treasury, "We are not flogging off these pubs to help your accounts. We want more money from you to develop the scheme in the interests of tourism and the people of Scotland", including the constituents of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Hamish Gray (Ross and Cromarty)

I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He devoted a lot of it to the activities and achievements of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I support what he said. I have always been a supporter of the Board, and I was delighted when it was created. From its rather chequered career in its early days. I watched it develop into a viable Board which has created industry in the Highlands and has been very acceptable to the vast majority of people there. It has had its critics, and from time to time its critics have been justified.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross

Not all its critics.

Mr. Gray

The critics I have in mind have been constructive and the board, which, by and large, has done a very good job, has benefited from their criticisms.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the Board has lost its steam. I think it is consolidating and I am sure that in the years ahead, with pressure from hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and myself, we shall see it achieve even greater things. I do not agree with him in his suggestion that the hotels at present controlled by the State management district in Ross and Cromarty should be transferred to the Board. The Board has, I agree, built two hotels and is in process of building a third. It is going to lease those hotels to private management.

I am much more anxious to see the hotels at present run by State manage- ment in my constituency run and owned by local individuals so that local participation will to the utmost be represented in these transactions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that I do not wish the brewers to go into my constituency in large numbers. I am sure that they will not, for the simple reason that, with one possible exception in my constituency, I doubt whether any of these hotels has the kind of turnover which would attract the brewers.

Mr. Buchan

I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. But how will he ensure that these hotels go to local people, or to the existing tenants? The Government have flatly refused to allow such guarantees to be written in. We have been given an assurance but there is nothing to that effect in the Bill.

Mr. Gray

I am satisfied that the board can play a vital part in this because a great many of these hotels, during the years they have been controlled by Statement management, have not been added to in the form of the provision of considerable advantages as they might have been. One of the powers of the Board is to provide finance where vital accommodation for tourism is being built and where additional jobs are being created. I feel that the Board will play a useful part in that way.

It was suggested that if the hotels were handed over to the Board the Government would get the rentals which would be charged. I am sure that in the sale of these hotels to private individuals a great many of them will be purchased by families and family concerns and that the Government will get a steady remuneration through the usual taxation system.

I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in this but I am sure it would not be his wish to mislead us in his reference to the 259 projects to the extent of £1¼ million. It should be pointed out that not all these projects were in the State management area.

Mr. Ross

I did not say so.

Mr. Gray

The right hon. Gentleman gave that impression.

Mr. Ross

I read directly from a report. It referred to Ross-shire. I meant Ross-shire. When I say Ross-shire, and it is heard as Ross-shire, I do not mean Cromarty.

Mr. Gray

The constituency is known as Ross and Cromarty, and the right hon. hon. Gentleman knows, in the context in which we are talking, that the impression given was that the State management area covered the two. The State management area covers only a fraction of my constituency.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about the brewers as well. All the hon. Members opposite who are taking part talk about the brewers from time to time. When development took place in Caithness and Sutherland at Dounreay, there was no immediate grab by the brewers for all the hotels nearby. The situation in Ross and Cromarty, with the development at Invergordon, is similar. It is one of my greatest regrets that the British Aluminium smelter, which I applaud, does not in itself create a great deal of ancillary industry. That is one of the sad things about it. It is not the type of industry that in itself creates a lot of ancillary industry. I wish it were. I wish there would be a great deal more development there. I am certain that there will be as time goes on. I think it will come from different sources.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that the Bill would not change the face of Ross and Cromarty. I agree. It is a pity that he did not attend some of our Committee meetings when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) gave some of his performances which would have been more acceptable at the London Palladium than in Committee. The hon. Gentleman nearly sang to us on one occasion. We were all relieved when he only read out his rhyming couplets instead of singing them. I believe that this will not change the face of Ross and Cromarty, but that it will merely enable local people to participate in the hotel industry, I hope with the assistance of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman expresses a hope and I go along with it. But there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in anything that the Government have said to give any assurance that local people will benefit in the way he wishes.

Mr. Gray

I hope that not only will local people benefit in the way I wish but that even some of the people who are at present employed in the State management district will benefit by becoming proprietors of some of the small hotels.

I have particular respect for the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). He has a persuasive manner and is so sincere that I am sure we all attach a deal of importance to what he says. But it would be a mistake if the Government were to accept this Amendment, because I believe that greater benefits to my constituency will be achieved by private enterprise taking over these houses.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I was amazed when I saw the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—not by the fact that it had been put down but by its extreme modesty. But that is typical of him. It is precisely because it is so modest that the Government would have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment.

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) to talk about private individuals in his constituency buying the pubs. Of course, there is the small matter of finance. It is true—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may not be aware of this—that they are going to get first option to buy them. But, of course, if the business in some of these rural pubs is small, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty indicated, there might not be sufficient attraction to the private individuals concerned and they might not have the cash anyway. Nor might they have the means to get it from whatever source might be available.

Even if that were the assumption there would be no denying that the tourist potential in the area is considerable and ought to be developed to the maximum. This must involve spending considerable amounts of money. The individuals who the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty hopes may take possession of these pubs will simply not have the available capital. He might say that they could apply to the Highlands and Islands Development Board for it because that is what it is there for. As he has rightly said, the board has built hotels, and it is in the process of building another. It has the expertise, the staff, the personnel and the experience. Furthermore it has a deep commitment to developing the full potential of the Highlands.

When they introduced this Bill the Government put forward two propositions. The first was that the State should get out of the liquor business. This is their ideology; it need not necessarily be accepted by us, and I hope we shall have a close look at this before the next General Election. Meanwhile the principle of this has been accepted and it is not infringed by the Amendment. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Development Board gets cash from the Treasury. To that extent the Government can say that it is a State body engaged in the liquor trade. It would however, be a minute part of its business.

That was the first proposition. The second proposition was never explicitly stated, but we know the Government's antipathy towards public enterprise, towards nationalisation except when a private industry such as Rolls-Royce crashes. Then they nationalise. It seems a curious contradiction of principle. However, we can expect this from the present Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock reminded hon. Gentlemen opposite about their misgivings at the time that the Highland and Islands Board was proposed, including their description of it as being "pure Marxism". If there is one place where pure Marxism would be very relevant it is the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The nationalisation of land would be more readily accepted in the Highlands of Scotland than anywhere else in Britain. The sooner it happens the better.

The Board has powers of compulsory acquisition, and the Government have not sought to limit those powers or curb the activities of the Board. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, who now hovers around somewhere doing something or other in the Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble)—the very man who described this as "Marxism"—was anxious that his constituency should be within the Board's area.

6.15 p.m.

No Scottish Member would deny that the board has breathed life into the Highlands, given it hope such as has never existed for centuries. All that we say in this modest Amendment is that it should be given the chance to expand its activities a little.

I remember that in Committee, when I had made an erudite speech on the original gravity of beer and its alcohol content and compared the quality of the Carlisle beer with the rubbish that is produced by the contributors to the Tory Party, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty. That is not allowed, but if this proposition were accepted the board could build its own brewery in the area and get experts from Carlisle to advise on how to produce a far better quality beer than Youngers, Watney Mann, Charrington and all the others who draw their beers from the rivers of this country. Furthermore, the beer could be produced much more cheaply.

Mr. Gray

May I put the record straight about that last statement by the hon. Member. I did not say what he has suggested. I said that because of transport costs we did not get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Hamilton

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was not deliberately misquoting him; my memory was at fault. I think he would agree that after we had explained the high quality of the beer in Carlisle and its low price compared with the rubbish foisted on the public elsewhere he said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in his area. If the Board built a brewery in his area he would have a brand-new aluminium smelter, with a great employment potential and a brand-new brewery which employs mostly men. This is what he wants in his area, and it would be an election winner for him.

Perhaps I should not be giving the hon. Member this advice but I am always willing to be helpful. If he goes to his constituency and tells them about this helpful idea he has had from the hon. Member for Fife, West about establishing new industries in Ross and Cromarty, employing men, and at the same time providing them with cheaper and better beer than is provided by the contributors to the Tory Party, he might at least save his seat, which he will not do at the next election as things look at present.

Mr. W. E. Garrett (Wallsend)

He might save his deposit.

Mr. Hamilton

There is great merit in this Amendment, and I would strongly advise the hon. Member, in his own interests, to vote with us. I understand that there were petitions in the pubs and hotels in this area when the Government proposed the introduction of this Bill and that many signatures were placed on those petitions. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that he misled the Committee, but he said he had received only two letters on this subject pro or con. Hundreds of people signed these petitions in favour of the retention of the State system. Although the Government did not have a mandate for this, we have accepted the principle that State management should go. We are not infringing that principle in the Amendment, but we are saying that there is an instrument already available with the necessary expertise and finance to do the job.

The junior Minister at the Home Office who has been handling the Bill with great merit and tolerance but with considerable distaste—he has done reasonably well the job for which he is inadequately paid—argued when we were seeking to set up a liquor trust to do this job that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There may be something in that argument. Some nut it is, but it is a nut that the brewers are anxious to get their greedy claws on. He cannot use that argument about this Amendment.

We are talking about an area with an unemployment rate far worse than even the worst areas in Scotland, and that is saying something. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has his diary filled with engagements for official closures of factories. This will be his full-time employment in the next year or two. That is a very strong argument for accepting the Amendment. It is not much to ask; it is very modest. We have been co-operative and have accepted the principle of the Bill, with reluctance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond in the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved and debated.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The debate on the Amendment has brought out all the old political motives, the same old political claptrap which we have heard in debates on almost every Amendment in Committee and on Report. It must have given great pleasure to the hon. Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to express their desire for the nationalisation of almost every activity in the Highlands. The debate has shown them up in their true colours, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and his constituents will have taken full note of. The surest way for my hon. Friend to lose his seat at the next election would be for him to take the advice of the hon. Member for Fife, West. He does not require me to give him that advice because I know he has the common sense not to listen to what has been said.

I join in the tribute paid to the Highland and Islands Development Board by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and by other hon. Members. The Board is doing a good job in the Highlands; it deserves our support, and it is getting our support. I take exception to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he criticised the support which we give to the Board. We are supporting the board and are anxious to see it successful in the policies which it is introducing into the Highlands. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also criticised what happened in Committee. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) had read what I said. He did not quite quote it all, but he was at least accurate in his source of information. I exhort the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to read what I said about the disposal of assets and our hope that where people locally want to buy, particularly tenants, the facilities will be available for them.

There are tenants of properties other than licensed properties, and we want to give local people the opportunity to purchase. My hon. and learned Friend yesterday spoke of the financial facilities available to managers and others who put in offers and of the opportunities which will be available for them to do so. We are, therefore, concerned that local people should have these opportunities, and this is one point which we shall be taking up in relation to disposal.

Mr. Buchan

I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognised that I quoted him correctly, but he must not leave the suggestion with the House that I approve of that which I quoted. I was opposing that which I quoted. The whole grave-men of the case is that, despite what appears in HANSARD, which no longer matters if the Bill becomes an Act, not one single action has been taken, not a single Clause or Schedule has been introduced, to safeguard the position. Assurances from the Conservative Party are not enough.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I take the point of the hon. Gentleman that by quoting my speech he was not endorsing it. I did not intend to imply that he was. He acknowledged what I said in Committee, whereas some of his right hon. and hon. Friends implied that some of the things that had been said had not been said.

We debated fully last night the whole question of the methods of disposal, and I do not want to return to these wider issues. I will deal with the detailed question whether it would be right or wrong to hand over these assets to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock is right in saying that the Board is much concerned with hotel development within this area. He quoted from one publication of the Board, but a more interesting publication to quote is the Board's fourth report in 1969. The Board did a survey of tourist needs in the Highlands and pointed to the need for much greater provision of hotel and boarding house accommodation. The report suggested a programme which the board hoped to follow to meet the needs of tourism in the Highlands. Part of this programme will be available to those who purchase hotels in the Cromarty State management area. The Board gives help to existing hotels and boarding houses which wish to extend, and in future these arrangements will cover equally the hotels that are currently owned by the State Management. The Board also suggested ways of bringing together individuals and bodies to help in the construction and development of hotels. I freely admit the interest of the Board in this.

My colleagues in Government and I feel strongly that the taking over and running of this business is not a function of the State, whether the State is in the guise of the Home Office, the Scottish Home and Health Department or the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and this goes right back to our fundamental debate on the Bill. We believe that it is not the State's function to carry on the business of hotels and public houses and that this is properly a function of private enterprise.

6.30 p.m.

The main function of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is that of development, and the resources of the Board for development purposes will be available to those who succeed the Secretary of State in operating these premises in the State management districts. The idea that the Board could take over and run these premises does not fall directly speaking within the development purposes of the Board, though I appreciate that in a legal and technical sense the Board would have power to do so.

Mr. Maclennan

Is the Minister saying that, although the Board has the capacity to run businesses and this power is written into the legislation, the present Government will not allow the Board to do so, or is he saying that the Government do not intend to allow it to run this particular type of business?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The board has the legal capacity to do so, but we believe that private enterprise should be given the opportunity to run those sectors which are right for private enterprise. This is where we differ in philosophy from the Labour Party. We must agree to differ on this matter since it is not our intention to encourage State operation in these activities.

The Highlands and Islands Development Board in its 1969 programme expressed the wish to provide new hotels in particular areas in the West and in the Islands, where it believed facilities were needed and where other organisations and agencies were not meeting these needs. The board provided the first hotel under this scheme at Craignure on the Island of Mull, and there is another scheme under consideration, which is in its planning stage, on the Island of Barr. The Board has shown no sign of eagerness to run the hotels. The running of State management premises can be left to private enterprise, without involvement by the Board except where there is an appropriate development project. What reason can there be for the Board becoming directly involved in trading? The board has seen no reason so far for doing so, and we see no reason for it to engage in these activities. The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case for saying that the Secretary of State should approve of the Board going in for these particular activities.

The point was made that the Board might take over these hotels and then lease them out. This again raises a matter of principle. I see no reason for the Board investing in these assets any more than that the Secretary of State should do so. Since the return on capital in the State management districts is not attractive to the State, I do not see that it would be any more attractive to the Board, and it would no doubt consider whether better use could be made of its capital. Therefore, on both these grounds I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.

I was also asked about consultation with local advisory committees and with the Board. We have not asked for the Board's views on this Amendment. We believe that in principle this is not a function of the Board and to that extent have not discussed it with it.

Mr. Buchan

Disgraceful.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

We are conscious of the Board's own desire not to get involved in running this business.

Mr. William Hamilton

How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Because the board has let out to private enterprise the one hotel built by the Board which private enterprise is operating on the Board's behalf. We are in close touch with the board about the State management district and my officials are keeping the Board informed of our proposals about selling off the assets in the State management area.

Mr. Buchan

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say that he was not even going to consult the Board about a matter which affects part of the economy of the Highlands, but he is say- ing that he did not put this specific Amendment to the Board. Why has he not done so? This matter affects the Highlands, it is now being debated in Parliament and should have been discussed with the Board.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

We are in consultation with the Board and, although we did not discuss this specific Amendment, the Board has not expressed to us any wish to take over these assets.

I repeat the statement I made in Committee, that we are in consultation with the local advisory committees. The function of these committees relates to the day-to-day running of State management districts, and their function does not involve general principles of policy. To that extent we have not consulted local advisory committees on these basic matters of policy or on this Amendment. We have put our proposals to these committees and have asked for their comments. I can confirm that that has been done and that they are aware of our proposals.

I apologise for answering this debate at some length, but it raises a matter of principle. I am at one with right hon. and hon. Members opposite in wishing to see the development of tourism in the Highlands. However, we believe that this should be done in the way it has been done in the Ross and Cromarty area, which is ready and willing to take advantage of the opportunity given to it by the Government in this Bill. In these circumstances I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ross

I cannot say that I am disappointed. The hon. Gentleman's reply was more or less what I expected.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

That does not surprise me in the least. The right hon. Gentleman always prefaces his remarks by saying that he has got what he expected.

Mr. Ross

It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had said that before concluding his speech, than interrupting mine before I had time to get beyond the first sentence.

The hon. Gentleman made one staggering remark when he said that he did not think there was any reason to consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board about this Amendment. Having said that, he back-tracked immediately and said that his officials were in touch with the Board about the disposal of these assets. I thank heaven that they are in touch with someone. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) told us how a pledge had been given that the Carlisle workers and managers would be kept up to date with what was going on, and that nothing had been done.

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

They ratted.

Mr. Ross

I prefer not to use that expression. My hon. Friend may rely on me to make my own speech and put my own emphasis on it.

The Under-Secretary said that there was a fundamental and basic objection to the Amendment since on no account should the State get mixed up in the liquor trade. It took him a while to discover that. There have been quite a few Tory Governments since 1916. It was not the Labour Party which set up the State management scheme, after all. It was the war time coalition Government, when Lloyd George was Home Secretary. The matter was reconsidered in 1921, with the Tories dominant, and again it was continued. We had any number of Tory Governments before the war, and we had 13 years of them after the war. But, suddenly, the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office discovers that it is basic and fundamental that nothing connected with the State should sell any commodity for profit.

If that is so, all the electricity boards had better stop selling cookers, fridges, and the rest of it. The Scottish Transport Group had better start getting rid of its hotels. It was all very well for these hotels to be run by McBrayne's, but as soon as the company became part of the Scottish Transport Group, philosophically and basically it has no right to do so. Then there are British Railways. Apparently they have no right to run hotels. Gleneagles and Turnberry are a tribute to their efficiency. They are the best hotels in Scotland. However, the State should not be involved in them.

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Government are trying to decorate with dogma a decision which was taken, I am sure against the good judgment of the Home Secretary, to commit this dastardly deed in respect of State management. It will not make a bit of difference, and the hon. Gentleman knows it, in respect of any major aspect of policy. But it will please a lot of Tories in Scotland when the great triumph of the Secretary of State is proclaimed to a Tory Conference: "We got rid of State management". Never mind about U.C.S. and the fact that in the summer, unprecedented in the month of June, unemployment is now running at 121,647. We know that it will go up again in July when youngsters leave school. On present trends, unemployment will be over 150,000 in February of next year. But, never mind; we have dealt with a great problem. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

I will not go on very much further. We went on about it before. The hon. Gentleman is devoid of any justification for what he is doing. We tried to give him a way out in the shape of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It has the power and the know how, and it could decide whether to deal directly or on the basis of leaving the premises to managers or tenants. But, no; everything must be uniform. There is a town in England—I believe that it is Hull—which has its own telephone system. I suppose that is next on the list. There are some great levellers on the benches opposite who say that we must not have anything different. It used to be a matter for pride that there were differences and eccentricities about the way we did things in different parts of the country.

6.45 p.m.

The next thing that we shall discover is that we have to make changes in the Bill where certain provisions apply only to England and Wales and where others apply only to Scotland. Those will have to be made uniform, too. The Home Secretary ought to look at the Bill to see what Amendments he authorised after lengthy Cabinet meetings to the effect that certain parts shall not apply to Scotland. It is ridiculous that this great Government should bring this Measure forward so early in their lives.

The hon. Gentleman made some reference to our giving up a Supply Day. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us where he got his information. It is not true.

Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)

No, it is untrue.

Mr. Buchan

That is the same thing.

Mr. Ross

We curtailed our remarks in Committee because the hon. Gentleman was becoming concerned about the length of time that the Committee's consideration was taking. We complied with his request, and some of the Amendments that we are discussing today should have been discussed in Committee. The Government agreed to give additional time for the Report stage. However, it is not additional or extra time; it is adequate time for the discussion of these problems.

We are dealing with property to the value of nearly £5 million which is to be disposed of in a way which has created certain suspicions among sections of the community. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can wriggle as much as they like. When we know that the Chairman of the Tory

Division No. 393.] AYES [6.49 p.m.
Abse, Leo Doig, Peter Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Dormand, J. D. Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Allen, Scholefield Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Hunter, Adam
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Driberg, Tom Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Armstrong, Ernest Duffy, A. E. P. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Ashton, Joe Dunnett, Jack Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Atkinson, Norman Eadie, Alex Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Edwards, Robert (Bilston) John, Brynmor
Bennett, James, (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Bidwell, Sydney Ellis, Tom Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Bishop, E. S. English, Michael Kaufman, Gerald
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Evans, Fred Kerr, Russell
Booth, Albert Faulds, Andrew Kinnock, Neil
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Lamond, James
Bradley, Tom Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Latham, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lawson, George
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Forrester, John Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Buchan, Norman Fraser, John (Norwood) Leonard, Dick
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Galpern, Sir Myer Lestor, Miss Joan
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Garrett, W. E. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Gilbert, Dr. John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Carmichael, Neil Ginsburg, David Lomas, Kenneth
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Golding, John Loughlin, Charles
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Gourlay, Harry Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Grant, George (Morpeth) McBride, Neil
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) McCartney, Hugh
Cohen, Stanley Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) McElhone, Frank
Concannon, J. D. Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mackenzie, Gregor
Conlan, Bernard Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Maclennan, Robert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hamling, William Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cronin, John Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Marks, Kenneth
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hardy, Peter Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Davidson, Arthur Hattersley, Roy Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Mendelson, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Heffer, Eric S. Millan, Bruce
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Hooson, Emlyn Miller, Dr. M. S.
Deakins, Eric Horam, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Delargy, H. J. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Molloy, William
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Party in Scotland is Sir William McEwan Younger and that over the three years of the run-up to the General Election, as chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, he gave £59,000 to the Tory Party, it is no wonder that there is a measure of suspicion about this Bill.

I wish that I had as much faith as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) in the Government's pledges. He has no real reassurance about who will get the licensed premises in the Cromarty-Firth area, and I am sure that he is sufficiently intelligent to know it. There is no guarantee that any individual getting them with the backing of a brewer will not be part of another brewing empire in a very few years.

We gave the Government a way out of this difficulty. They have not taken it, and I trust that we shall defeat them in the Division lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 210.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Roper, John Wainwright, Edwin
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Rose, Paul B. Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wallace, George
O'Halloran, Michael Sandelson, Neville Watkins, David
O'Malley, Brian Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Weitzman, David
Oram, Bert Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) Wellbeloved, James
Orme, Stanley Sillars, James White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Palmer, Arthur Silverman, Julius Whitehead, Phillip
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Skinner, Dennis Whitlock, William
Pavitt, Laurie Small, William Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Pentland, Norman Spearing, Nigel Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Perry, Ernest G. Stallard, A. W. Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Woof, Robert
Probert, Arthur Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Rankin, John Tinn, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Torney, Tom Mr. Joseph Harper and
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Tuck, Raphael Mr. James Hamilton.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Varley, Eric G.
NOES
Adley, Robert Gibson-Watt, David Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Goodhart, Philip Mawby, Ray
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Goodhew, Victor Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Astor, John Cower, Raymond Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Atkins, Humphrey Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Moate, Roger
Awdry, Daniel Gray, Hamish Molyneaux, James
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Green, Alan Money, Ernle
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Gummer, Selwyn Monks, Mrs. Connie
Batsford, Brian Gurden, Harold Monro, Hector
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Bell, Ronald Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mudd, David
Benyon, W. Hannam, John (Exeter) Murton, Oscar
Berry, Hn. Anthony Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Biggs-Daviton, John Haselhurst, Alan Neave, Airey
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Havers, Michael Normanton, Tom
Body, Richard Hawkins, Paul Nott, John
Boscawen, Robert Hicks, Robert Onslow, Cranley
Bossom, Sir Clive Higgins, Terence L. Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Bowden, Andrew Hiley, Joseph Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bray, Ronald Holland, Philip Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Holt, Miss Mary Peel, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Percival, Ian
Bryan, Paul Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pink, R. Bonner
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Howell, David (Guildford) Pounder, Rafton
Bullus, Sir Eric Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Burden, F. A. Hunt, John Proudfoot, Wilfred
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn) Hutchison, Michael Clark Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Carlisle, Mark Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Chapman, Sydney James, David Raison, Timothy
Churchill, W. S. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Redmond, Robert
Clegg, Walter Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Cookie, Robert Kilfedder, James Rees-Davies, W. R.
Coombs, Derek Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick King, Evelyn (Dorset, S) Ridsdale, Julian
Cormack, Patrick King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Costain, A. P Kinsey, J, R, Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Critchley, Julian Knight, Mrs. Jill Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Crouch, David Knox, David Rost, Peter
Curran, Charles Lambton, Antony Russell, Sir Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lane, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Scott, Nicholas
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Le Marchant, Spencer Shaw, Michael (So'b'gh & Whitby)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Dixon, Piers Longden, Gilbert Simeons, Charles
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Loveridge, John Skeet, T. H. H.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward McAdden, Sir Stephen Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Dykes, Hugh MacArthur, Ian Speed, Keith
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McCrindle, R. A. Spence, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) McLaren, Martin Sproat, lain
Eyre, Reginald Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stanbrook, Ivor
Farr, John McMaster, Stanley Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Fell, Anthony Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy McNair-Wilson, Michael Sutcliffe, John
Fidler, Michael McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Tapsell, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet Madel, David Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fowler, Norman Maginnis, John E. Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Fox, Marcus Marten, Neil Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fry, Peter Mather, Carol Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Gardner, Edward Maude, Angus Tebbit, Norman
Thatcher, Bt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Walder, David (Clitheroe) Wiggin, Jerry
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Trafford, Dr. Anthony Wall, Patrick Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Trew, Peter Waiters, Dennis Woodnutt, Mark
Tugendhat, Christopher Ward, Dame Irene Younger, Hn. George
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin Warren, Kenneth
van Straubenzee, W. R. Weatherill, Bernard TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Wells, John (Maidstone) Mr. Jasper More and
Vickers, Dame Joan Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Waddington, David

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Back to
Forward to