EMERGENCY POWERS

HC Deb 14 February 1972 vol 831 cc169-201

10.13 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)

I beg to move, That the Regulations made by Order in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and date 9th February, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act. The House having decided on the main issue of the granting of emergency powers, the Emergency Powers Emergency Regulations, 1972, are the regulations designed and provided for in the Act to maintain the essentials of the life of the community at large in a situation of emergency. As the House well knows, such regulations give the Government powers, some of which they may or may not use, in order to maintain those essentials.

The House will be familiar with the general form which such regulations take. In 1966, at the time of the seamen's dispute, and in 1970 in this Parliament with the docks strike, the House had general regulations before it. They were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who spoke of the groupings of the regulations and described their effect. I shall return to that. But there are certain alterations in the present regulations, as there were alterations in the regulations of 1970 compared with those of 1966, and I shall bring the attention of the House to those.

In 1970 there were five new regulations compared with those of 1966, and these were the regulations which appear now under the present regulations. Regulation No. 3 relates to the directions that can be given to ships and the movement in harbour of craft. That was new in 1970, as was Regulation No. 4 dealing with the movement of ships and of other vessels such as hovercraft. Regulation No. 15 was different from that of 1966, by relaxing regulations with regard to the conveyance by road of petroleum and similar kinds of dangerous materials. Regulation No. 26 gave the power to hire coaches and oblige them to carry passengers under directions. Regulation No. 28 gave power to regulate conditions for the carrying of passengers in ships.

Those were the main changes made in 1970. I now draw the attention of the House to further changes that have been made. As the House will appreciate, when emergency powers have been granted and emergency regulations are introduced, they give very extensive powers. It is only right to point out to the House where there have been changes from those which the House has previously considered, for instance, in 1970.

Regulation No. 11 is different from that of 1970. That is new. It provides for the Secretary of State for the Environment to exempt drivers from complying with the law relating to permitted hours and periods of duty, and other procedural matters. It may be necessary for drivers to drive for longer hours in emergency circumstances and, therefore, the Minister is given power by order to exempt drivers from the permitted hours regulations. This power has not yet been exercised.

Then there are the important Regulations Nos. 17 and 18—replacing the previous single Regulation No. 16—dealing with both public utilities, and they give to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry new powers for regulating or prohibiting the consumption of electricity and gas. Under Regulations Nos. 17 and 18, the details of which I shall come to shortly, the Secretary of State is empowered to authorise persons to act on his behalf, in particular, to enter premises, if necessary by force.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Regarding the regulation concerning drivers' hours, etc., can the Attorney-General say whether the regulation gives authority for lorries to be unlicensed and uninsured and if, as is the case, some of the lorries have been untaxed and uninsured, may I assume that that is at present illegal and could not be done legally? Will the Attorney-General take some action on that matter?

The Attorney-General

I will take action if the hon. Gentleman sends me evidence of any offences having been committed. I will certainly see that that matter is considered.

Regulation No. 11, which I was dealing with, deals with drivers' permitted hours and means that there can be exempted the obligation of a driver to drive for only certain hours and keep records of the hours he drives. Under the 1968 Act, he can drive for only a limited number of hours. This regulation provides that the Minister may give these directions He has not done so yet.

Regulation No. 17 is necessary because, in particular, of the nature of this emergency, which affects principally the supply of electricity and gas. Under this regulation there is power to give directions to industry. It is under this regulation that orders have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to which he referred earlier. These are specific orders to specific consumers. As my right hon. Friend said, about 20,000 have been issued. They regulate the hours during which a person or company to whom the order is directed may consume electricity. This relates to industry.

The Secretary of State is empowered to authorise persons to act on his behalf and to enter, if necessary by force, industrial premises to see if there has been any contravention of any direction which has been given to cut off the electricity. This is to ensure that persons comply with such orders.

The penalties provided in the regulation are only a fine of £100 or a suspended sentence for a first offence. Therefore, there must be some effective powers of entry to see if there has been a contravention or to cut off the supply if, but only if, there is a reluctant or recalcitrant consumer. It is an important power and is very relevant in this emergency.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to these as important powers. Surely they are drastic powers—to enter into a house in this way by force. Who are to be entrusted with these powers? Are they to be officers of the electricity boards and are they to have special authorisation from the Secretary of State?

The Attorney-General

I thought that I had made it clear that the orders made under this regulation are directed to industry and industrial premises and not to houses. I will come to Regulation No. 21, which provides for the making of orders with regard to shops or offices or, if they were to be made, domestic premises. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these are drastic powers. This is why, although it may be wearisome for the House, I think it is always important for the House, when there are such regulations and when the Executive is given such powers, that there should be an explanation of the detail of the Regulations.

Mr. Palmer

Will the Attorney-General answer my question? I asked whether the powers are to be given to an officer of the electricity board and whether he is to have a special authorisation.

The Attorney-General

I was answering the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because the hon. Gentleman had said that the power was one to enter a house. I was explaining that the power was not to enter a house and that it is a power to enter industrial premises.

Regulation 17(5) says: The Secretary of State may authorise any person acting on his behalf …". The Secretary of State must personally authorise that person to act on his behalf if there is to be an entry in the circumstances I have mentioned.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Did my right hon. and learned Friend say that a warning would be given before steps would be taken to bring a case to court?

The Attorney-General

No. I was dealing solely with the power the Secretary of State has to authorise anybody to enter industrial premises and there to see whether there has been a contravention, or even to cut off the electricity. Regulation No. 18 relates to gas supply, and obviously safety considerations apply there. Regulation No. 17 is a power to enter premises and see whether there has been any contravention, then to cut off the supply, and, if there should be an offence, the authorised person would have to give notice of the fact that he had found that there was a contravention of the regulation. Then there would be proceedings, notice of which would have to be served on the person who had allegedly been guilty of breaching the regulation.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Regulation No. 17(5) provides: The Secretary of State may authorise any person acting on his behalf to enter any premises… My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked specifically whether it is the Secretary of State's intention to invest these powers to an individual employer by the electricity board or by the police. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether it is a member of the electricity board or, if not, who is it?

The Attorney-General

The hon. Gentleman has carefully read out the provisions set out under Regulation No. 17(5). The Secretary of State may authorise any person acting on his behalf to enter premises. Clearly, someone acting on his behalf would be some person whom he directs and not an ordinary constable. It would be somebody authorised on his behalf who would have to have his direct authority so to carry out the duties.

These powers and regulations are always serious, drastic and important and they are given at times of emergency to the Executive. This provides a legal framework for the restriction of the use of electricity by industry initially on certain specified days in each week. In general terms, Regulation No. 17 is not to be used to impose restrictions on other than individual industrial consumers. The power of entry is restricted to Regulation No. 17 and, as we shall see, Regulation No. 18. The Secretary of State must himself authorise the persons to exercise these powers. As I have said, this regulation is directed to a particular individual industrial concern classified as falling within a group. It recites that there is a prohibition on consuming or permitting the consumption of electricity on named days for any purpose other than those set out.

Regulation No. 18 is framed on similar lines but it is not to be applied in the same manner. A power of entry can be exercised by a person other than the Secretary of State if given that power by the Secretary of State. The reason is that a gas board might have to be given these powers to ensure public safety, and that is a very compelling reason that they should be so given.

Regulation No. 21 was included in the 1966 and 1970 regulations. It is under this regulation that orders have already been made to restrict, for instance, advertising by the use or the consumption of electricity, floodlighting, and non-domestic heating—that is, heating in offices and shops. But with Regulation No. 21 there is no power of entry because these are general directions. It is only when there is a specific direction under Regulation No. 17 or Regulation No. 18 that the power of entry exists.

To come back to Regulation No. 19, I feel that I should draw the attention of the House to this because it is a new regulation. It replaces the old Regulation No. 17, extending it to river authorities exercising their function under the Water Resources Act, 1963, to disregard certain statutory obligations. It is normally an absolute duty which can, however, be obviated now by Regulation No. 19.

Regulations No. 25 and No. 26 extend to rail, stating what may be carried by rail and at whose direction.

Regulation No. 39 is the only other alteration from the regulations which the House debated in 1970, and it is a more convenient drafting way of making the general provisions.

I have brought to the attention of the House those differences between the 1966, 1970 and 1972 regulations. In the case of 13 of those regulations the powers are basically, and in most respects wholly, those which successive Governments have sought and obtained in circumstances of national emergency, and the Government will retain those powers for as long, but only as long, as the emergency exists. The powers are imperative in order to maintain the life of the community.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I hope that the Attorney-General will not think me discourteous when I say that, in our judgment, the regulations should have been presented not as a legal problem but as giving the Government the opportunity to say how they intend to protect the community in the state of emergency which now confronts us. Now that the previous Division is over and done with, and the House has accepted that an emergency exists, we must look at these regulations not really as an exercise in legal draftsmanship but as the main instrument available to the Government to deal with the crisis the gravity of which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear in his speech winding up the debate on the emergency powers. It is strange that the regulations have been presented by the Attorney-General and not by the Minister who signed them.

The Attorney-General

It has always been the custom—indeed, it has been the wish and demand of the House—that regulations which give the Executive such powers should at least have their legal implications pointed out by the Attorney-General of the day. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that that has been the custom.

Mr. Benn

I am not grumbling about the availability of the Attorney-General to deal with questions. I should not grumble if the Attorney-General had held himself available to deal with legal problems raised by hon. Members in the debate. But this is not a precautionary debate, as many have been about emergency regulations in the past. We are now, as the Secretary of State made clear, in a serious situation. Having had a whole day's debate, ranging over the handling of the miners' dispute, to which I do not wish now to refer, the House and the country must take the opportunity of this 1½ hours' debate to ask the Government how they propose to handle the emergency which they have described. The powers which the Government wish to take under these regulations are very wide, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said; and the way in which we must regard them depends upon the use which the Government intend to make of them.

Only two orders have been made under the emergency regulations, and one direc tion has been given. It is in order to comment on these orders, because the regulations themselves are the superior authority. The first comment which I make is that we regard the orders which have been made as quite unsatisfactory, on the ground, first, that there was no foresight or adequate consultation with those most likely to be concerned. I do not wish to continue the debate which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wound up a few minutes ago, but it is inconceivable that this question of foresight could pass without some reference to what the right hon. Gentleman himself said seven days ago.

At Question Time last Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate just how serious is the public electricity system at this moment? It is balanced on a knife-edge. Does he not think that the Government bear some responsibility for the situation by their foolhardy policy of discrimination against the nationalised industries in the matter of pay settlements? The Secretary of State replied: No. I do not agree with that remark at all. That was seven days ago today. I asked the right hon. Gentleman then: In view of the gravity of the crisis, to which reference has been made, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government cannot stand aside from this matter, particularly as they are known to be a major factor in the background of all the negotiations? He replied: The Government are keeping the whole issue under careful and continuous attention and will take any action which they deem necessary in the light of any development"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 948.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in order? It looks as though we are continuing the debate on principle. That has been concluded, and I thought we were debating the regulations in detail. I had hoped that the Opposition would want to probe the wording so that we would know their effect. Merely to continue the last debate for propaganda purposes is a misuse of parliamentary time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the Chair will look after the conduct of the debate.

Mr. Benn

I am grateful for that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to continue the discussion about the miners' dispute. I am considering whether the Government exercised a sensible foresight in the preparation of the regulations and the orders made under them. That is what the present debate is about.

I refer now to what was said on Friday after the Secretary of State's statement. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce sent him a telegram saying: All chambers of commerce deplore the lack of prior consultation about severe power cuts announced by you in the House today. Moreover this inadequate notice limits opportunity to plan, especially as cuts could be on intermittent days. This is an unnecessary additional handicap to production. Telephone and telex messages show much resentment. This is a reference to the way in which the Secretary of State has made orders already under the emergency powers. There is no doubt that from the point of view of the Prime Minister's speech on Friday night the statement made on Friday morning had maximum political effect.

The question we are debating is whether the regulations were drafted and conceived to minimise the damage done to industry under the emergency powers. Without going into all the industries affected, I think the House should know, and anyone who has followed the Press comment will know already, that certain continuous-process industries are very badly hit indeed by the regulations and orders that were made without any consultation. In the steel industry there has been the effect on Consett and Hartle-pools. The British Steel Corporation may well have to lay off over 10.000 men by the middle of the week. The chemical industry and the brickmaking industry are hit. The blast furnaces are affected. The Invergordon and Anglesey smelters are seriously affected. The glass works in Irvine in Scotland, which is referred to in the Financial Times today, is faced with the danger of having to be rebuilt if it is denied the fuel it needs. That could take 12 months, and 500 jobs would meanwhile be at stake. I.C.I., Runcorn, where chlorine is produced, is seriously threatened. It is estimated today that the effect on the train services will cost British Rail about £30 million, in addition to the £100 million that may be the cost to the Coal Board itself. In the motor industry, half the Leyland 64,000 workers are likely to be laid off. Vauxhall at Luton has closed. Lucas has 21,000 people affected by the rotation of cuts. The National Farmers Union has commented on the effect on milk and food.

All these things follow from the orders made, made without any consultation with industry whatsoever. I understand that the Minister for Industry has spent part of the day discussing these matters with industry, which has alternative arrangements it would like to put forward for the handling of the rationing of fuel supplies. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about the extent to which he has been able to move to meet the needs of industry. If fuel supplies are as short as the Secretary of State said, it is essential that those who are using electricity should have the opportunity of commenting on how that electricity should be shared out.

The second area I want to open up is that these regulations gave the Government a great deal of power to deal with what other people do. They can amend legislation affecting drivers' hours, for example, and they give power of entry to premises. We want some account of how the Government intend to react to the situation directly within their own power.

I want to mention the work of four Departments which are clearly affected and which give reason to believe that the Government have been wholly lacking in adequate preparatory work. The first is the Department of Trade and Industry itself.

The information services set up by the D.T.I., and advertised by printing four or five addresses in the newspapers, have been totally overwhelmed by the number of business firms ringing up for information. Indeed, the telephone numbers were not even printed in the Press, no doubt to make it just that little more difficult for firms which wanted adequate answers to get them. Is the Department now satisfied that its information centres are going to be not only continually manned on a 24-hour basis but able to provide the answers that many firms, including small firms, are anxious to get?

Next, there is the Department of Employment. I think it highly significant that the Financial Times today made clear that the Secretary of State did not want workers to report to employment exchanges but to make contact with their own employers and let them handle it. This decision has two consequences. The first is that it gives the employers, at this moment of acute difficulty, the responsibility for calculating and registering all those who are likely to be affected by electricity cuts. At this moment, when employers and managements are heavily burdened, the Government say to the workers, "Don't bother us. Go to your own employers."

The second serious consequence, I understand, is that today is the day on which certain counts are made throughout the country to give an idea of how many people are temporarily stopped. By putting it out today that those affected by electricity cuts were not to go to the employment exchanges, the Department has made sure that the House will have figures which are not perhaps accurate accounts of how many people are temporarily stopped as a result of the dispute. These two factors represent very serious defects in the Department.

There is yet another aspect in which the Department of Employment is involved. It is normal when people are to be laid off because of an impending redundancy for the Department to set up special centres in the firms likely to be affected. I recall many cases when the Department set up such centres when redundancies were likely in order in those cases to help people find other work. Are the Government going to adopt this practice in order to get an accurate record of the number temporarily stopped as a result of the dispute?

Still another aspect of the Department's work was raised earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who asked the Secretary of State about the implications of the Industrial Relations Act on the possible provisions for balloting in the event of the N.U.M. deciding to put the issue before its members as a whole.

I had another question concerning Regulation No. 32—and this is why I wish the Attorney-General had spoken at the end of this debate. I want an assurance from him about Regulation No. 32, which says: No person shall trespass on, or on premises in the vicinity of, any premises used or appropriated for the purposes of essential services; and if any person is found trespassing on any premises in contravention of this paragraph, then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed by the appropriate person from the premises. Is Regulation No. 32 to have any bearing on the picketing situation as explained by the Home Secretary in a series of answers to the House last week? I should like an authoritative answer from the Minister on that matter before the debate concludes.

The Attorney-General

I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Regulation No. 37 which says: Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these Regulations by reason only of his taking part in, or peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike. That clearly keeps alive the right peacefully to picket. Therefore, peaceful picketing does not permit of trespass of loitering or anything provided for in Regulation No. 32, but Regulation No. 37 provides that the position of a person peacefully picketing remains as it is under the present law.

Mr. Benn

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for clarifying the point, and I am the more pleased that I put it. At the same time, this was not clear unless specifically explained. Therefore, this—plus the references he has given—will be of value in case Regulation No. 32 is wrongly thought by some to constitute some limitation on the power of peaceful picketing.

I turn to deal with the Department of Health and Social Security. This is another Government responsibility, and we must know what action the Government are to take faced with the possibility of massive weekly payments for those who have been temporarily stopped as a result of the dispute. Figures were given last week suggesting that the cost involved might be £20 million a week. I am not concerned with the figures at this moment. I am concerned to know whether the Government intend to tell the House tonight what plans they have made to see that the payments are made to all those who are eligible, many of whom may be in urgent need.

I turn from central government to the problems of the local authorities. I should like to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last Monday, when talking about the coal dispute in particular: The Government will pay careful regard to the needs of pensioners and others who for various reasons rely greatly on these supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 973.] Hearing that answer, I expected that if the Government came forward with any emergency regulations they would also have specific plans for dealing with that category of people. However, when I looked at the Government's advertisement in all newspapers today I saw the following, under the heading "Elderly people": There will be some elderly people who may find it difficult to cope. The welfare sections of local authorities will be active but, even so, if you know of elderly people nearby please contact them to make sure they are all right. I have no complaint about that request—and indeed we have made it ourselves in another context today—to people such as voluntary organisations to help. But there is no reference here to the Government using the enormous powers given to them by their own regulations to assist local authorities, to provide money for local authorities, to authorise local authorities to undertake what is probably one of the most difficult rescue operations they have ever been confronted with.

It would be wrong of us to pass these regulations until we have had a clear statement, either from the Minister in winding un the debate or from the Home Secretary if he wishes to intervene, to tell us how the old, the sick and the disabled are to be carried through this difficult period. There is the need for a proper register for money to be made available for help. We have no idea what the Government are doing in response to the Secretary of State's clear pledge that they will pay careful regard to the needs of pensioners.

As any hon. Member who has large blocks of flats in his constituency knows very well, older people living in those blocks of flats are isolated in any circumstances. But, without heating and without the lifts not working, there will be some people virtually imprisoned in those large blocks of flats, unless the Government are taking the trouble to see that the local authorities are in touch with them and are taking them food, as the Government have the power to do under these regulations.

There is the co-ordination of the work of voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has done a survey in his constituency of all the chronically sick and disabled there, encouraged by the Private Members' Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) introduced to the House. But in many parts of the country there still is not a register of these isolated people. There are the fifth and sixth formers who are not able to go to school because heating is not available in schools. Local authorities should not only be encouraged but given the authority and necessary money to get these youngsters out on the job of locating and helping people who live alone. The miners are making their soup kitchens available to old-age pensioners in areas where pickets are situated. I heard of this in the North-East when I was there on Saturday. The Government have made no comparable provision to help people confronted with the situation.

Even in the emergency handling of this crisis, the Government have shown themselves to be remote, aloof and incompetent. There was no foresight by the Minister of the consequences which would flow from the situation. There was no consultation, not even with his own organisation, the C.B.I. There was no report to this House on the machinery that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have set up within the Government. They simply present regulations which give them power to tell others what to do. There is no evidence so far of necessary help for local authorities to be able to deal with the consequences of the situation.

These regulations and the orders made under them do not inspire any confidence. The Government appear still to prefer confrontation to co-operation in this matter, too. For these reasons, I very much hope that the House will not find itself able to accept these regulations until the Government come forward with full answers to all the questions that I have put and to all the many others which are in the minds of the public at the moment.

10.52 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

It is obvious that the decision having been given earlier that there was a necessity, because of the problem facing the nation, to have emergency regulations, the House must proceed to give the powers that naturally flow from the vote taken less than an hour ago.

I suppose that the approach of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was typical. I resented one part of it, because it showed a mind which I do not think is in keeping with the standard that a Member of Parliament should have. When he found some twisted reason for an employer making representations on behalf of all his employees to avoid the employment exchanges being crowded, with all the difficulties and problems which would flow from it—

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)

They are crowded already.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman when he first drew attention to it, because it puts extra responsibilities on managements and employers at a difficult time. But then I realised that that was not the right hon. Gentleman's reason. He had some dirty-minded suggestion that this was being done because my right hon. Friends wanted to cook the books about the number of people unemployed on a certain date. This is an unreasonable attitude, and a sad one—

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me. I said that the Government had asked employers to assume this extra duty on this day and that it would have the effect of denying to the public the full knowledge of the number of people temporarily stopped. That is what I said: no more, and no less. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his suggestion.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

If what the right hon. Gentleman said does not mean what I have suggested, it means nothing. Un less it means what I have said, there is no point in making the comment. The right hon. Gentleman should face that or withdraw his words.

I intervene at this stage only to make a plea on behalf of small businesses and small industries. The right hon. Gentleman and others make speeches in support of big industries which are capable of looking after themselves. Usually they do not want guidance, any more than the big unions do. They have internal advisers. They know what they are doing. Usually they have resources to get themselves over periods of emergency. But the tens of thousands of small businesses which will be affected by the present emergency situation have not the same backing and organisation with which to look after themselves.

The plea that I make to my right hon. Friend and to any Department which will be implementing the emergency regulations is to show consideration for the uncertainty and misunderstanding that is bound to exist in the minds of people who run small businesses and small industries. I should like to feel that instructions will be given to give warnings before applying the full rigidity of any fines or action in the courts which may flow from a disregard of these regulations. I should like to feel that the approach will be that people will be warned first, and then, if they disregard a clear warning that can be clearly understood, the full force of the penalties that arise from the regulations will be applied. Unless this matter is approached in that kind of spirit, then, as is always the case, it will be those tens of thousands of small business men and small industrialists, who have not the same facilities as others, who will be dragged before the courts and will carry all the odium and the difficulties which flow from these essential emergency regulations.

I will not take up the time of the House any longer. There is not, under our procedures as they stand, a great deal of time to discuss these regulations. However, I should like some assurance that this sympathetic approach to an understanding of the real uncertainties which will follow will be taken whilst implementing the emergency regulations.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I want to bring the House back to Regulations 31 to 37, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a passing reference. I appreciate that the second part of Regulation 37(1), as the Attorney-General said, to some extent excludes people who are engaging peacefully in a strike. But these regulations are about the miners' strike. Looking at the whole of the wording, from Regulation 31 to Regulation 37, it is clear what the effect of that part of Regulation 37(1) is likely to be.

I ask the House to look, for example. at Regulation 35: Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant". Again, it is important from the miners' point of view to look at Regulation 31: No person shall do any act with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working or movement of any vessel". What consolation is Regulation 37 to miners who go down to the docks to exercise their legitimate right to picket? What we are seeing, and what we are likely to see in future, is an increasing volume of coal imports. In a situation where the coal industry supplies 75 per cent. of our energy requirements, the only way that the Government can defeat the miners, if there is a continuance of the strike, is by the importation of coal from the Continent of Europe. We are being asked to place in jeopardy miners who will want to picket ships in order to prevent the importation of coal. I do not want to discuss the pros and cons of the dispute and the validity or otherwise of the miners' strike. I support them 100 per cent. and, bearing in mind their record over the last 10 years, I do not know how any hon. Gentleman opposite can oppose them.

One of the most disappointing things for me in the previous debate was the absence of sympathy and reality in the speeches from the benches opposite. We are faced with an intense struggle by the miners, and they will not be particularly concerned about legal niceties. They will not ask "If I say 'bloody' am I out of court?". They will not ask, "If I use my hands, am I peacefully picketing, or is there a likelihood of my being charged with something other than peaceful picketing?".

This is an extremely emotional situation, charged with every passion that one can think of. Men will go down to the docks to try to stop the importation of coal. Regulation 35 gives rise to the possibility of a constable deciding that he has reasonable cause to arrest one or more miners. I invite the attention of the House to Regulations 32, 33 and 34. One can visualise the situation at the docks, at a power station, or anywhere else, of a constable, thinking that he has "reasonable cause"—those are the words in Regulation 35—for arresting someone.

Does anybody imagine that if Joe Gormley were arrested—[Interruption.]—It ought to be put on record that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that that would not be a bad idea. The hon. Gentleman hoped that his comment would not get on the record.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughlin

I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman made his comment sotto voce in the hope that it would not get on the record. He cannot get away with that. He said it, and now he want to qualify it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

As always, the hon. Gentleman is too clever by half. The hon. Gentleman was describing the situation of somebody at the docks not picketing peacefully and a constable taking the view that that person is in breach of the law. If someone is in breach of the law he ought to be brought up for that, and that applies whether it is Joe Gormley or the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Loughlin

The hon. Gentleman wanted to put Joe Gormley in jail. Now he has not the guts to stand up for what he said. He did not even listen because I am well away from the ship now. I have got to Regulation No. 32, 33, 34. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman has read them. No matter where the alleged breach takes place, once miners are arrested in anything like large numbers there will not be the ghost of a chance of getting them back to work. We are not dealing with power workers or the Post Office workers.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden)

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of some of the words of the regulations. He was a member of the Government in 1966 at the time of the seamen's strike and no doubt will recollect that Regulations Nos. 26, 27 and 28 at that time are almost word for word as set down here. No doubt he supported those quite openly.

Mr. Loughlin

According to the hon. Gentleman I have been hoist with my own petard. He is a relatively junior Minister—it is no good him smiling about it—and he will learn that individual members of a Government will not necessarily personally accept the policy for which they are collectively responsible. That is a charlatan's trick. If he has been in Government five months he knows that he has accepted collective responsibility for a decision with which he disagrees. He can always resign—that is true—but if that were done there would be resignations every day of the week. I am dealing with life as it is. The danger in applying these regulations to this strike is enormous because we are dealing with closed communities, and if there are wholesale arrests the miners will never go back to work. It would be better for the Government not to apply this part of the regulations if there is this danger.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in his reference to Supplemental Regulation No. 35, which deals with a constable's power to arrest without warrant, and provides that Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence. There is no need for this regulation. If a person breaks the law a constable—or, indeed, an ordinary citizen—already has power to arrest him without warrant.

When the Secretary of State was speaking I interjected, and I got a fair amount of information about illegal picketing. I want to put it on record that the miners who have been picketing the Fiddlers Ferry power station, at Sutton Manor, in my constituency, have been doing so completely legally. The Minister's refer ence to the old and the sick—and the hospital—having to go without fuel supplies is completely untrue in relation to my area. The Minister should withdraw what he said about the miners refusing to allow the old and the sick to obtain fuel supplies. I witnessed picketing miners visiting houses occupied by sick and old people who were without fuel and seeing that coal was delivered within hours. I received an assurance that hospitals requiring fuel would get their supplies at the instance of the National Union of Mineworkers.

When the Minister referred to illegal practices being carried out by certain groups I drew his attention to the fact that a few miners were due to appear at the Newton-le-Willows magistrates' court next Wednesday morning on a police charge, and that the case was sub judice. It was very unfair for the Minister to refer to illegal practices of pickets in a case like that. I suggest to the Government and the Law Officers that in view of what the Minister said this afternoon, serious consideration should now be given to the withdrawal of those summonses.

One or two hon. Members opposite attacked the miners' case. Quite unjustly, one hon. Member suggested that it was wrong for hon. Members on this side of the House to divide the nation on this matter. I remind the House that the Government have already divided the nation on the matter. They did so when they applied the 7 per cent. norm to the public sector of industry. Comparing what has taken place in wage negotiations in the private sector with the 7 per cent. norm imposed for the public sector, we are driven to the conclusion that it amounts to a directive to the public boards to resist any claims above the 7 per cent. norm. It is clear that the board dare not go above the 7 per cent. norm—8 per cent. at the most—without the consent of the Government.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite who attack the miners' case do not understand that case. Anybody with experience of the industry appreciates, for example, the economic necessity for coal and the dangers involved in winning it. I do not know one miner out of the 1,800 in my constituency who does not suffer from a lung disease of one sort or another. Miners should be put on a par from the reward point of view with workers in similarly dangerous occupations.

Britain is one of the few countries in the world which treats its miners so shabbily. On a recent tour of the Soviet Union I questioned Ministers there about their approach to industrial matters of this kind. I discovered that the wages and working conditions of Russian miners are on a par with those of doctors. Indeed, I was informed that it was possible for miners to earn more than doctors. There is nothing wrong with that.

In a recent speech the Prime Minister referred to what he called the inflationary tendency of high wage claims. But why do workers submit frequent wage claims? Consider, for example, the last Rent Act. An old-age pensioner who lives alone in a flat in my constituency received a notice at the beginning of this year informing her that her present rent of £106 a year, inclusive of rates, would go up as from 1st April, 1972, to £11.60 a month exclusive of rates, to £14.70 exclusive as from 1st April, 1973; to £17.50 exclusive as from 1st April, 1974; to £20.90 exclusive as from 1st April, 1975; and to £24 exclusive of rates as from 1st April, 1976.

It should not be difficult for economists to find out why the workers go on claiming wage increases. Everyone knows that the real value of wages is being eaten away by such increases as I have just quoted. School children's milk used to be free; from children of the age of 7 and upwards free milk has been withdrawn. School meal charges have gone up. Every housewife knows that the price of almost every item in the shops has gone up about three times in the last twelve months. I have taken a particular interest in English cheeses, and I know that one famous firm, which I will not now name, has three times increased the price of its English cheese.

When the miners put in their claim they were fully justified because not one of them was being paid an economic wage for the job he was doing. There is no-one here, not even those hon. Members who are ex-miners, who would enjoy going back into the industry for the money being paid. The case for the miners is undeniable, and it is wicked that we should now have on our hands a strike that no-one wants—not even the miners, until they were forced out on to the streets.

The propaganda being directed against the miners is that because of the strike the old, the sick and others are not getting their fuel. The fact is that in my part of the world the miners on picket duty are seeing that every known pensioner, everyone suffering from sickness which imprisons him in his own home, and the local hospitals right up to the Merseyside are getting their fuel supplies, because our miners are compassionate.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This debate must finish at 11.42 p.m., and I understand that the Minister wishes to catch my eye at 11.30 p.m. Mr. Heffer.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

In the few minutes that are available to me I have one or two things to say about picketing. I am very glad that the Home Secretary has come into the Chamber, because he said earlier that the miners were perfectly within the law. That is quite true. But on the 28th of this month the law on picketing changes with the coming into operation of Section 134 of the Industrial Relations Act. That Measure continues the present law in all respects but one; in the normally accepted sense of the word the picketing of people's homes is prohibited.

But Section 98 of the Industrial Relations Act makes the legal position different on the question of anyone inducing a person to break a contract of employment. That Section could well be used after 28th February. The Minister should answer this specific point. These regulations could well be used in conjunction with Section 98 of the Industrial Relations Act, which comes into operation from 28th February. We should know precisely what the Government have in mind about picketing after that date of power stations and similar places. If there is no settlement by that time, such places will still be picketed by the N.U.M. There will also be secondary action by the T.G.W.U. and workers who are supporting the miners in their struggle.

One point not answered by the Attorney-General when he replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was that it was emphasised that anyone picketing peacefully about a strike would not be affected by these regulations. But under Regulation 32 on trespassing and loitering, if the premises are designated as required for essential services—that could mean power stations—what would be the position of someone found loitering nearby if those peacefully picketing could nevertheless be classified as loitering?

The Attorney-General

It is categorically clear in the proviso of Section 37 that if someone is peacefully picketing any person or persons to take part in the strike, he will not be guilty of any offence included in any of these regulations. Therefore, it will not be an offence against these regulations, provided and if that person is doing what he is entitled lawfully to do: peacefully persuading any other persons to take part in a strike. That is the protection, which would mean that he could not be guilty of an offence under Section 32 if he were peacefully persuading a person to take part in a strike.

Sir Arthur Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Is it not possible that it may be lawful under these regulations to remove a picket even though he has not committed any offence?

Mr. Heffer

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have only two minutes left. In reply to the Attorney-General, despite the fact that he has reiterated what Section 37 says, after the regulations are introduced and if a power station is designated for essential services, what is the position? It is no good the Attorney-General shaking his head. Governments do not introduce emergency regulations just because it is a nice thing to do. They introduce them to use them. That is why these regulations have been introduced.

It was suggested that that is what the Labour Government did in 1966. That is true. In 1966 some of us objected. We have objected to all these emergency regulations because we have believed that the answer is not to use repressive measures, not to introduce such regulations. The answer is to intervene in the sense of using proper industrial relations machinery to solve the dispute. That is why we have always taken the attitude that we should not introduce such emergency regulations, but should solve the strike by using the existing machinery to bring those concerned to the negotiating table.

In Liverpool, the Clarence Dock Power Station—oil-fired and not picketed, with the oil arriving in tankers by sea—is not being used to capacity. This question has been raised with me by the workers at that power station. They suspect that orders have been given to this effect and that this is part of the development of a public attitude of mind against the miners. This is what the workers think. If it is not so, the Government should say so, because the workers suspect that the Government have only one intention, namely, to use whatever methods they can to break the miners.

I tell the Government now that, no matter what methods they use, they will not break the miners, because the miners have the united support of the workers. The miners will win. The quicker the Government recognise it and give the miners what they want instead of introducing nonsensical regulations of this type the better.

11.31 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) found it necessary to take up the time of the House by making that last point which I am sure that he himself does not believe. He knows full well that there is no truth in it.

Mr. Heffer

Prove it.

Sir J. Eden

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General drew the attention of the House to the nature of the changes in these regulations from those which were presented to the House in previous emergencies. This enabled the House to consider these very important serious matters. I will try to answer the questions which have been asked by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and others. I want, first, to make it clear that the system of industrial restrictions which has been introduced has been dictated by the need to integrate them with the system of rota disconnections so as to ensure, so far as possible, that plants have interrupted electricity supply on the days on which they are permitted to use it.

Second, that has given rise to the legal necessity for individual directions. That, in turn, has led to the consequence that each direction had to be delivered in a manner which could be proved in a court of law. Then there was the legal necessity to await the coming into force of the emergency regulations, as any steps taken earlier would have had no legal significance. Finally, the administrative impossibility in any short space of time of giving individual directions to all 200,000 industrial consumers will be apparent to every hon. Member. It was for this reason that it was decided to confine the industrial restrictions to the 20,000 consumers with load in excess of 100 megawatts. These 20,000 industrial consumers are responsible for about three-quarters of the industrial load.

A system which depends upon a legal directive must obviously involve some awkward problems of interpretation and, inevitably, some hard cases. The regional directors of the Department of Trade and Industry have discretion to deal with the problems that arise, and their offices have been open to deal with inquiries on Saturday and Sunday over the weekend and will remain so. The offices are fully manned. A substantial number of inquiries have been received, and so far as possible these have been answered straight away. This resulted in a number of adjustments being made to meet individual difficulties.

The right hon. Gentleman and others asked me about the question of consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explained that there had been very full consultation indeed. This has not been extended to the associations of chambers of commerce. This is purely for security reasons. It is difficult, in planning a matter of this kind, to extend the consultation too far, but I assure the House that there was proper consultation with the C.B.I. Various points were taken fully into account at the time of the preparation of our plans. The fact that the consultations were extensive is demonstrated by the number of representations that I had from particular industry sectors, especially from the continuous process users, even before the regula tions came into force. Some of them were, in fact, already at that stage beginning to reduce the extent of their demand on the electricity supply system and beginning to reduce the heat that they were using.

The extent of the consultations was a matter also for the area electricity boards. One board, in fact, gave the full coverage to the whole of its 1,500 industrial consumers, but others have operated it on a more selective basis.

I think there are bound to be some rough edges in any statutory scheme of prohibition of this kind, but I assure the House that this has been constructed in as careful a way as possible. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that the position of small firms is very clearly understood in this case, and there is certainly no intention whatsoever—I think this is the phrase that he used—to drag people before the court. This will be carefully watched, and certainly the matter will be handled with sympathy and understanding.

The instance of the glass industry was cited by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. Where a company has a large load with direct metering, obviously it is subject to the specific direction which can arise from the identification which that fact allows. Otherwise such a company will become vulnerabe to the wholesale disconnections which are taking place additional to the normal sort of cuts which it might otherwise suffer.

I hasten to emphasise that there is absolutely nothing in the way in which this scheme is being operated which prevents them from using electricity to bring their plants safely to a standstill in order to preserve the plant. There has been some misunderstanding on this point, and I emphasise the fact now so as to ensure that those places in this situation know that they may continue to use electricity in order to bring their plant safely to a standstill where this is necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about insufficient notice having been given. I think the difficulty here is simply the nature of the timing of the announcement of any decision to declare a state of emergency. Obviously, the moment having been chosen to do so, it was naturally expected that there would follow up fairly soon thereafter the introduction of restrictions of this kind.

Mr. Benn

Were the actual arrangements that were made agreed with the industries at the time that the plans were laid?

Sir J. Eden

Not with each sector of industry. It was impossible to do that. It could not have been done. As far as possible, the major points were taken fully into account, particularly about continuous process users and others whose operations are very sensitive to interruptions of supply of this kind. This was done through the general processes which were available to us, in consultation with representatives on behalf of industry.

I come to the social questions which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I take, first, his accusation that there is some nefarious purpose behind the advice given to employees to turn to their employers at the present time rather than to the Social Security offices. There is no reason whatever to believe that there will be any interruption in the collection of statistics in this case. I have had that checked, as the right hon. Gentleman will have seen, I think. I shall follow it up in any case with my right hon. Friend afterwards. But so far as I have been able to find out during the course of the debate, there is absolutely no question that there will be any interruption.

It is primarily for the convenience of individual employees, who would otherwise have found themselves having to crowd into the offices on one particular day. It would have created a wholly impractical situation for the officers concerned in trying to deal with such a large number of persons temporarily displaced at that time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having made the point, will recognise that there is no justification for it whatever.

As regards old people, there is absolutely no lack of power already vested in local authorities under the Local Authorities Social Services Act, 1970, to help those in need. The same Act enables authorities to co-ordinate the help available through voluntary organisations and societies, such as the W.R.V.S., and also the voluntary effort from groups of young people.

It has not been possible for me to cover all the points raised in the debate so far. I have authorised the publication today of the list of essential activities so that the country may identify those public services and other essential activities which are specifically ear-marked for special consideration at this time of emergency.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 269.

Division No. 57.]	AYES	[11.43 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Brewis, John	Crouch, David
Allason, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Crowder, F. P.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Curran, Charles
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Hir Henry
Astor, John	Bryan, Paul	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, James
Atkins, Humphrey	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Dean, Paul
Awdry, Daniel	Buck, Antony	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Burden, F. A.	Digby, Simon Wingfield
Balniel, Lord	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Dixon, Piers
Batsford, Brian	Carlisle, Mark	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Drayson, G. B.
Bell, Ronald	Channon, Paul	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Chapman, Sydney	Dykes, Hugh
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Eden, Sir John
Benyon, W.	Chichester-Clark, R.	Edwards, Robert (Pembroke)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Churchill, W. S.	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Biffen, John	Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Biggs-Davison, John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Emery, Peter
Blaker, Peter	Clegg, Walter	Farr, John
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Cockeram, Eric	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Body, Richard	Cooke, Robert	Fidler, Michael
Boscawen, Robert	Coombs, Derek	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Cordle, John	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Bowden, Andrew	Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Cormack, Patrick	Fookes, Miss Janet
Braine, Bernard	Costain, A. P.	Fortescue, Tim
Bray, Ronald	Critchley, Julian	Foster, Sir John
Fowler, Norman	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Fox, Marcus	Longden, Gilbert	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Fry, Peter	Loveridge, John	Ridsdale, Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Luce, R. N.	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Gardner, Edward	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David	MacArthur, Ian	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	McCrindle, R. A.	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McLaren, Martin	Rost, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Royle, Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	McMaster, Stanley	Russell, Sir Ronald
Goodhart, Philip	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Goodhew, Victor	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Gorst, John	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Scott, Nicholas
Gower, Raymond	Maddan, Martin	Scott-Hopkins, James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Madel, David	Sharples, Richard
Gray, Hamish	Maginnis, John E.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh Whitby)
Green, Alan	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Grieve, Percy	Marten, Neil	Simeons, Charles
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mather, Carol	Sinclair, Sir George
Grylls, Michael	Maude, Angus	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gummer, Selwyn	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Gurden, Harold	Mawby, Ray	Speed, Keith
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Spence, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sproat, Iain
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Stainton, Keith
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Miscampbell, Norman	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Haselhurst, Alan	Mitchell, David (Basignstoke)	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hastings, Stephen	Moate, Roger	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Havers, Michael	Molyneaux, James	Stokes, John
Hawkins, Paul	Money, Ernie	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Hay, John	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Sutcliffe, John
Hayhoe, Barney	Monro, Hector	Tapsell, Peter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Montgomery, Fergus	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Heseltine, Michael	More, Jasper	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Hicks, Robert	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Higgins, Terence L.	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Hiley, Joseph	Morrison, Charles	Tebbit, Norman
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Mudd, David	Temple, John M.
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Murton, Oscar	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Holland, Philip	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Holt, Miss Mary	Neave, Airey	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hordern, Peter	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hornby, Richard	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Tilney, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Normanton, Tom	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)	Noll, John	Trew, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Onslow, Cranley	Tugendhat, Christopher
Hunt, John	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Iremonger, T. L.	Osborn, John	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Owen, Idris (Etockport, N.)	Vickers, Dame Joan
James, David	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Waddington, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Jennings. J. C. (Burton)	Parkinson, Cecil
Jessel, Toby	Peel, John	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Percival, Ian	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Wall, Patrick
Jopling, Michael	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Walters, Dennis
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Pink, R. Bonner	Ward, Dame Irene
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Pounder, Rafton	Warren, Kenneth
Kershaw, Anthony	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kimball, Marcus	Price, David (Eastleigh)	White, Roger (Gravesend)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Wiggin, Jerry
Kinsey, J. R.	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Wilkinson, John
Kirk, Peter	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Winterton, Nicholas
Kitson, Timothy	Raison, Timothy	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Knox, David		Woodnutt, Mark
Lambton, Lord	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Worsley, Marcus
Lane, David	Redmond, Robert	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Younger, Hn. George
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rees-Davies, W. R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis. Kenneth (Rutland)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)		Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Meacher, Michael
Albu, Austen	Freeson, Reginald	Mayhew, Christopher
Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.)	Galpern, Sir Myer	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Allen, Scholefield	Garrett, W. E.	Mendelson, John
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mikardo, Ian
Armstrong, Ernest	Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Millan, Bruce
Ashley, Jack	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ashton, Joe	Gourlay, Harry	Milne, Edward
Atkinson, Norman	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Molloy, William
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Baxter, William	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Beaney, Alan	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Hamling, William	Moyle, Roland
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bidwell, Sydney	Hardy, Peter	Murray, Ronald King
Bishop, E. S.	Harper, Joseph	Oakes, Gordon
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Ogden, Eric
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	O'Halloran, Michael
Booth, Albert	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	O'Malley, Brian
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Heffer, Eric S.	Oram, Bert
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Hooson, Emlyn	Orbach, Maurice
Bradley, Tom	Horam, John	Orme, Stanley
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Huckfield, Leslie	Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pavitt, Laurie
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hunter, Adam	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Cant, R. B.	Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Pendry, Tom
Carmichael, Neil	Janner, Greville	Pentland, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Perry, Ernest G.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Prescott, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	John, Brynmor	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Coleman, Donald	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Probert, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby. S.)	Rankin, John
Conlan, Bernard	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)	Richard, Ivor
Cronin, John	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Judd, Frank	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Kaufman, Gerald	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Dalyell, Tam	Kelley, Richard	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davidson, Arthur	Kerr, Russell	Roper, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Kinnock, Neil	Rose, Paul B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lambie, David	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lamond, James	Sandelson, Neville
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lawson, George	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Deakins, Eric	Leadbitter, Ted	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Leonard, Dick	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Delargy, H. J.	Lestor, Miss Joan	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dormand, J. D.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sillars, James
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lipton, Marcus	Silverman, Julius
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lomas, Kenneth	Skinner, Dennis
Driberg, Tom	Loughlin, Charles	Small, William
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Spearing, Nigel
Eadie, Alex	McBride, Neil	Spriggs, Leslie
Edelman, Maurice	McCann, John	Stallard, A. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McElhone, Frank	Steel, David
Ellis, Tom	McGuire, Michael	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
English, Michael	Mackenzie, Gregor	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Evans, Fred	Mackie, John	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Ewing, Harry	Mackintosh, John P.	Strang, Gavin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Maclennan, Robert	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)	McMillan. Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Swain, Thomas
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Taverne, Dick
Foley, Maurice	Marks, Kenneth	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Foot, Michael	Marquand, David	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)
Ford, Ben	Marsden, F.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Forrester, John	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Tinn, James
Torney, Tom	Weitzman, David	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Tuck, Raphael	Wellbeloved, James	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Urwin, T. W.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Varley, Eric G.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin	Whitehead, Phillip	Woof, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Whitlock, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wallace, George	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	Mr. James A. Dunn and
Walkins, David	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Mr. John Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Regulations made by Order in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920 and dated 9th February 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.