§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 19, leave out lines 12 to 21 and insert:'2.—(1) Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to reclamation or maintenance works and, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below:—(a) the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below shall not apply to such works carried out within the limits of deviation; and1643(b) a licence under section 73 of the Port of London Act 1968 shall not be required for any reclamation or maintenance works carried out within that part of the Port of London Authority area which lies seawards of a line drawn from Garrison Pier on Shoeburyness to Garrison Point on the Isle of Sheppey.(2) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above are'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
With this amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, and also Amendment No. 5, in Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert'provided that at every stage of reclamation and attendant dredging operations there is consultation and agreement with the authorities, including Trinity House, responsible for the safety of navigation and flood control in the River Thames, River Crouch and River Roach'.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 seek to clarify and generally to tidy up certain arrangements in Schedule 3 which deal with the exclusion or modification of statutory controls. They make a number of changes in respect of the statutory controls of the Port of London Authority, and so on. Trinity House has been consulted on the matter of the pilotage requirements. These are generally formal amendments.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 29, at end insert:
'(3) In relation to works carried out outside the Port of London Authority area after such date as may be certified by the Secretary of State as the date on which reclamation under this Act has been completed, sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect as if the reference to section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 were omitted'.
No. 24, in line 30, leave out lines 30 to 41 and insert:
'3.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any reclamation or maintenance works within the limits of deviation but outside the Port of London Authority area are likely to cause obstruction or danger to navigation the Maplin Development Authority shall during their construction and after their completion take such steps for the prevention of danger to navigation as he may direct.
(2) If it appears to the Port of London Authority that any reclamation or maintenance works within the Port of London Authority area are likely to cause obstruction or danger to navigation or to prejudice the conservancy of the River Thames the Maplin Development Authority shall during their construction and
after their completion take such steps for the prevention of the danger or for the conservancy of the river as the Port of London Authority may direct.
(3) Where a direction is given to the Maplin Development Authority under subparagraph (2) above, the Authority may within fourteen days or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow appeal against the direction to the Secretary of State; and on any such appeal the Secretary of State may confirm, vary or cancel the direction.
(4) Where the Maplin Development Authority fails to comply—
the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Port of London Authority may take the steps specified in the direction and recover the costs reasonably incurred in doing so from the Maplin Development Authority; and if that Authority disputes that costs so incurred by the Port of London Authority were reasonably incurred the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) Section 76 of the Port of London Act 1968 shall not apply in relation to anything done by the Maplin Development Authority in compliance with a direction given by the Port of London Authority under this paragraph'.
No. 25, in line 41, at end insert:
'4. The provisions of the Pilotage Act 1913 with respect to compulsory pilotage shall not apply to tugs, dredgers, sludge-vessels, barges and similar craft whilst employed by the Maplin Development Authority in the exercise of its functions under this Act'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Queen's recommendation signified.
§ 10.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Heseltine
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.
We have had an extremely full and detailed debate on the first two new clauses which were selected for discussion. Perhaps, therefore, it is not appropriate to cover all the ground again at this stage. However, I am sure that I carry the House with me in saying how grateful we are for the work of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). The Committee held sittings lastnig more than 50 hours and heard 16 witnesses. Its Report and Minutes of Evidence are a great tribute to it and contain a wealth of information on the subject.
1645 I must also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who led for the Opposition. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have heard of the extreme courtesy and patience with which he performed his task, and I know that my hon. Friends were grateful for his help.
I am sure, too, that it is appropriate to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who piloted the Bill through what was without doubt a very difficult Committee stage. Many hon. Members have been involved in the process of selecting a site for an airport, and it is a decision that is not easy to get right, and certainly it is a testing experience to carry a hybrid Bill through Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to other hon. Members who carried out that process—
§ Mr. Heseltine
I am torn between taking the hon. Gentleman's advice and the feeling that I must not be discourteous to the House. We have covered an immense amount of ground. If I detect the mood of the House aright, I am happy to suggest that, in view of the long discussion of this matter which we have already had, the House should now proceed without more ado to give the Bill its Third Reading.
§ 11.1 p.m.
§ Mr. Crouch
I shall not detain the House for long. I have already spoken at length on other provisions. I voted as I did on earlier provisions because I believed, as I still believe, that the case for the Bill has not been proved. Much as I respect the skill and good humour with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State presented his case, I am afraid that he did not convince me, and I do not think he has convinced many other hon. Members. The arguments put forward by the Government for the Bill will not have convinced the country that this great expenditure is justified. For these reasons I must advise the House and all my hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading.
§ 11.2 p.m.
§ Mr. Crosland
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his brevity, which fits in with the mood of the House. I have already made my Third Reading speech. I merely wish to endorse the advice given to the House by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I think we have already thrashed out this matter on two new clauses which were considered by the House a little earlier this evening, and the sooner we settle the matter on Third Reading the better
§ 11.3 p.m.
§ Sir Bernard Braine
I, too, wish to be brief. Leaving aside all the uncertainties about airport policy, the House is being asked to pass a Bill which would enable works to proceed for establishing an airport and seaport before we know what the effect of dredging in the estuary will be on the tidal and surge behaviour of the Thames, the Crouch, the Roach and the Medway and before we know where the new road and rail communications are to run.
If I had not made up my mind before about how to vote on Third Reading, certainly the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State fudged the whole question of the costs of the roads and bridges—I recommend hon. Members to study carefully what was said in the Standing Committee and in the Select Committee on this subject—made up my mind for me. We are being asked to pass the Bill before we know the full implications of the proposed new scheme for the whole of the Thames Estuary.
My constituency is already very gravely affected by a bad decision taken by the Department of the Environment. We have no reason to believe that assurances given about safeguarding our environment will be honoured unless safeguards are written into the Bill. This is my sole reason for intervening in this debate.
For these reasons I shall not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, and I urge as many of my hon. Friends as possible who care about the interests of people in an area which Parliament has willed shall become the site of the third London airport to support me in the Lobby.
§ 11.5 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison
I shall not detain the House for long. I want first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the good-tempered way he took us through Committee. He is a difficult man to oppose because he is so good-tempered but his charm and so on have not succeeded in convincing me that we should support the Bill. I must vote against the Bill tonight because until I know where are the corridors which will affect so many of my constituents, and which will affect more people than any of the other alternatives put up by Roskill, I do not feel that I can support the Bill.
Finally, on the financial side, I do not think we can complete this operation of massive public expenditure in the next decade or two decades, and for that reason I intend to vote against the Bill.
§ 11.6 p.m.
§ Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst)
I did not intend to impose myself on this debate, but, having heard some of my hon. Friends, I do not think I have listened to more parochial speeches discussing one of the most imaginative and important projects proposed by any Government to safeguard the future of our air traffic and the extension and regaining of our great port facilities in the South-East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) talked about caring about people, but the minority of people who take five boats a week through, half an hour either side of the tide, and who have flooded protests on members of the Committee about birds, bees, boats, fauna and everything else, do not seem to care about the quarter million who live round Heathrow, about children who have to be in schools—[Interruption]. My hon. Friend has had his say, and we are entitled to speak for the densely populated areas in the complex of Greater London.
Either we shall lose our supremacy in the increasing international air traffic at Heathrow, or we shall make things infinitely worse for the quarter million to half million people who cannot open windows in an office because one cannot hear to dictate or to answer the telephone, and for those in schools where they have to have double glazing because 1648 children cannot hear what the teachers say.
We are asked to maintain the enormously valuable international transocean traffic which comes by air to this country, and it must be done either by extending Heathrow, which I adamantly oppose for the benefit of the enormous number of people who already suffer the burden of the noise in a highly congested area, or we must build imaginatively enough on reclaimed land to dissipate the noise across the sea. With it will be built a joint complex with a port. However, the Bill deals exclusively with the airport, but reclamation, imaginatively used, will provide both. No London Member has been without representations as ports up the estuary to London have been closed.
We have the greatest skills in London but nobody has told us how much money has been lost by the unloading of imports at Rotterdam, where they are off-loaded into boats. We have an opportunity of regaining for London and the South-East an important port. It is no use the North or the West grousing about this matter. About 25 million people can be served from ports within range of London. We must have a good London port, and this Bill can provide it.
Some of my hon. Friends have been far too parochial. We must see this measure through, unless we want to give the lot to France and M. Pompidou, who will rub his hands with glee. France is ready to build a port to take the biggest ships. Anybody in London docks knows the amount of shipping that we have lost to Rotterdam. Any hon. Member who has been to Rotterdam will have seen it for himself. Do we want Britain to regain its supremacy, or are we prepared to throw it away for five boats a week going up the creek?
§ 11.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)
My constituency includes within its boundaries Heathrow Airport. Tonight I should like to declare my support for Third Reading of the Bill.
I believe that in the interests not only of my constituents but of all those who use air transportation a third major airport is necessary. I have listened with great care to those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have argued persuasively that Maplin is not, 1649 for one reason or another, the best site for this airport. However, I am not convinced by those arguments. Therefore, I support the choice of Maplin. I believe that it will be as satisfactory a site as any.
For many years my constituents have had to tolerate aircraft noise. They have had to accept major changes in their environment in terms of new roads, new hotels, and the growth of all the necessary supporting services for modern civil aviation. They have borne these changes cheerfully and proudly. They have made a major contribution to the success of London Airport in the labour that they have provided. They are proud of all the changes that have taken place in the last 20 years or so. However, they are deeply concerned about the possibility of near misses. They know that these near misses are avoided only by virtue of the sophisticated nature of modern air traffic control equipment. Many people in Uxbridge believe that the air traffic at Heathrow has now reached saturation point and that the time has come for the Government and this House to do their duty to those who live around Heathrow Airport by providing a third London airport for all who use civil aviation.
To hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently against a third London airport, which, let us face it, no part of the country wants, and to the residents of South-East Essex I say: be proud that your area has been chosen as the site for this airport—[Interruption.] Be proud as my constituents have been, have the guts that my constituents have displayed, and have the privilege of serving civil aviation and your fellow countrymen by providing a decent third London airport for this country.
To the Government and the House I say: let us get on with the job that we were elected to do. Let us provide a decent third airport for London.
For those reasons, I am pleased and proud to support the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ 11.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Wilkinson
I shall not keep the House long. From the aviation point of view, I fear that the decision that we are about to take will decide whether we are to have on our hands at the 1650 beginning of the next century a redundant monument to the technology of the 1960s. If we do not support the Bill I believe that we can escape from this very real risk. It could be a kind of Maginot Line of aviation strategy and technology of the middle of this century, and become a great reproach and reminder of the decision we take tonight.
There are one or two things about the cost which have not yet been explained in full. If the move to Maplin is made in the way suggested, all the engineering and base facilities will have to be transferred as well, and the social cost in terms of housing, schooling and technical facilities, will be astronomic. The Chairman of the British Airports Authority, who will have the responsibility of running this airport, said, in minutes taken before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, that we would not get our investment on this project back until 2002. That is a horrifying thought. Every operator and most of the aviation advice has been against this project.
As for surface access, we have cancelled developments in magnetic levitation, hovertrains and the kind of high-speed surface access which will be so crucial to this project. The attitude of the GLC, whose complexion has changed, will be vital to motorway access.
This evening has been characterised by 1984 language. It is Newspeak which has predominated. When people talk about "environmental consideration" we should not forget that a valuable and beautiful part of the south-east corner of England will be irremediably changed. I do not believe, for technical reasons, that this is necessary. I recall the words of the Under-Secretary of State on the motion to take note of the Roskill Report, when he said that the Foulness project was "daftness". I do not believe that that has changed.
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)
I should like to take the House back to the time of the Roskill Report, when a number of us struggled very hard to affect a decision on Roskill with regard to the inland sites. I do not blame those of my hon. Friends who have taken a position this evening about the 1651 siting at Maplin on constituency grounds, although I agree that the debate has been marred by the parochial attitude generally. The overall benefits have not really come across.
During the time of Roskill we were dealing not just with inland sites but with the effect on airports around London. The Select Committee concerned comprised as many Labour as Conservative Members, and deliberated week after week. Immediately after the Roskill decision, 220 right hon. and hon Members signed a motion condemning any decision to place the airport at an inland site and equally any decision likely to increase noise and disturbance around existing London airports, and urging the Government to put it at Maplin or any other suitable coastal site.
That motion was signed by about 100 right hon. and hon. Members from the Labour Party. Where are they now? Toeing the line on a solution which, if they defeat the Bill, will incontestably result in steadily increasing misery for the people who live around the existing airports. Anyone who attended the meetings of the Select Committee, as I did, as its Chairman, during that period and listened to people from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted cannot conceivably deny what I am saying. If the Labour Party opposes this Bill, let it admit, as any reasonable person who has followed this business over the years must, that that is the direct implication of its decision. If it will not support the Government, what is its alternative?
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ Mr. Tebbit
I think the House knows my feeling about Maplin, and it has been fairly consistent—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Sit down then."] The hon. Member has had his chance. Perhaps he would allow me to have mine.
In essence, my feeling is that aircraft noise has become the heart of this problem, and that that problem is better dealt with at its source than by transferring it around the countryside. I do not believe that I am privy to information which my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not have, and I do not think that I am particularly cleverer than they or I would probably be where they are and they where I am.
1652 A few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping was most emphatic in saying to me in the House that the Government were intent on pressing forward with this airport. He gave me the impression that decisions were taken in his mind at least. What we have had this evening is an undertaking from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that there has been a shift from that position and that the situation will be kept continuously under review. That is what I understood was said.
If that is what was meant, I intend to keep my hon. Friends to that pledge. I shall be most assiduous in drawing to their attention, week by week, day by day—if necessary, year by year—those factors which have caused me to change my mind since the late 'sixties, and which have caused many of my hon. and right hon. Friends to change their minds, about the desirability of coastal sites. We shall watch our hon. and right hon. Friends to ensure that they live up to that undertaking given this evening.
§ 11.23 p.m.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
No one on either side disputes that more airport capacity is needed in South-East England. No one disputes that very many more aircraft and very many more people will have to be handled at new airport capacity somewhere. We have, therefore, come to the point of a choice. This Bill, as I have said, does not of itself authorise either the airport or the seaport, but it is clear to all of us here that we are now making a decision.
I can put it very plainly. On the airport, with Maplin we can and we will close down Southend and Stansted. We shall run down Luton, and probably close that, too. We shall abolish, save in emergencies, night noise at Heathrow and Gatwick, and we shall restrict the growth of both of those airports and, as time goes on, begin transferring traffic from them to Maplin.
Without Maplin, we shall need by the early 'eighties to step up very greatly air traffic and noise, first, by extending Southend to its ultimate capacity, by extending Stansted to its ultimate capacity and by extending Luton to its ultimate capacity. We shall need—and this is the choice the House is making—to cram 1653 three-and-a-half times as many people and twice as many aircraft into Heathrow. We shall need to build a second runway and increase the number of passengers by at least five times at Gatwick, and we shall still face the prospect, with the increased numbers pressing against ceiling capacity, of the need to build a new London airport for the future. That is the position as regards airports.
§ Mr. Crosland
I have no objection to the Minister making these statements so long as he makes absolutely clear that his statements—for example, about the need for a second runway at Gatwick—are without any support in the evidence provided by his own Government. They are totally unsupported statements.
§ Mr. Griffiths
The statement I am making is made on behalf of the Government, on the best information which is available to my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. That is the choice on airports.
There are other choices. With Maplin, we gain up to 18,000 acres of development land from the sea. Without Maplin, we shall need to build some of the new runway capacity and all the new passenger capacity on some of the most expensive land in the country, in the vicinity of Heathrow and Gatwick, and in the areas of Stansted and Luton.
Next, there is the housing for the workers who will work in the new airports. Either that must be provided for some 40,000 new workers in the travel-to-work area of Heathrow and Gatwick, or it can he provided in a green-field site in Essex.
Next, safety. With Maplin, almost all the growth in aeroplane movements in this country after 1980 will take place
§ over the sea. Without Maplin, all of that growth, plus all the existing traffic—a total of at least 400,000, and probably 500,000 aircraft each year—will take place over people's homes.
§ Last, what of the environment? Today 700.000 households in the Heathrow area alone are afflicted by noise within the 35 NNI contour. At Maplin the equivalent number, on the best estimates we can make, is likely to be less than 500. Even if engines get quieter, as all of us wish, and as I believe will happen—we shall do our part in making it happen—the sheer increase nevertheless in the number of aircraft movements makes it certain that the noise shadow, at least for the foreseeable future, will not become any less.
§ Taking all these considerations together—I have said nothing of the port—the saving of land, the greater ease of building homes for the airport workers, the greater safety—I hope that no hon. Member will say that it is safer to put these aircraft over the great city of London rather than over the sea—the reduced noise—
§ Mr. Griffiths
I hope that the House will pay rather more attention to the safety of people than to the safety of birds. Taking all these things together, it is right that we should make this decision to go forward in the future with an imaginative concept which will meet the country's needs instead of funking it as hon. Members opposite and one or two of my hon. Friends are recommending we should do.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes, 255, Noes 246.1657
|Division No. 155.]||AYES||[11.29 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Biffen, John||Carlisle, Mark|
|Allason. James (Hemel Hempstead)||Biggs-Davison, John||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Blaker, Peter||Chapman, Sydney|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher|
|Astor, John||Boscawen, Hn. Robert||Chichester-Clark, R.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bowden, Andrew||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Bray, Ronald||Clegg, Walter|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Brewis, John||Cockeram, Eric|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Cooke, Robert|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Coombs, Derek|
|Batsford, Brian||Bryan, Sir Paul||Cooper, A. E.|
|Bell, Ronald||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)||Cormack, Patrick|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Buck, Antony||Costain, A. P.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Burden, F. A.||Critchley, Julian|
|Benyon, W.||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Crowder, F. P.|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Campbell, Rt. Hn.G. (Moray & Nairn)||Davies. Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Jessel, Toby||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj -Gen. Jack||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Dean, Paul||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Redmond, Robert|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Jopling, Michael||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Dixon, Piers||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Drayson, G. B.||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Kershaw, Anthony||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Dykes, Hugh||Kimball, Marcus||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Roberts, Wyn (Coway)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Kirk, Peter||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Kitson, Timothy||Rost, Peter|
|Emery, Peter||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Eyre, Reginald||Knox, David||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Farr John||Lamont, Norman||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Lane, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fidler, Michael||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Le Marchant, Spencer||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Lloyed, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Loveridge, John||Shersby Michael|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||MacArthur, Ian||Simeons, Charles|
|Fortescue, Tim||McLaren, Martin||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Foster, Sir John||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Fowler, Norman||McMaster, Stanley||Soref, Harold|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Macmillan,Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)||Speed, Keith|
|Gardner, Edward||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Spence, John|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk. C.)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Sproat, Iain|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Maddan, Martin||Stainton, Keith|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B||Madel, David||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Maginnis, John E.||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Gorst, John||Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest||Stokes, John|
|Gower, Raymond||Mather, Carol||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Sutcliffe, John|
|Gray, Hamish||Mawby, Ray||Tapsell, Peter|
|Green, Alan||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Grieve, Percy||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Temple, John M.|
|Grylls, Michael||Miscampbell, Norman||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Gummer, J. Selwyn||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Gurden, Harold||Money, Ernie||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Monro, Hector||Tilney, John|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Montgomery, Fergus||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||More, Jasper||Trew, Peter|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Murton, Oscar||Waddington, David|
|Hastings, Stephen||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Havers, Michael||Neave, Airey||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Hawkins, Paul||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wall, Patrick|
|Heseltine, Michael||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Walters, Dennis|
|Hicks, Robert||Normanton Tom||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Nott, John||Warren, Kenneth|
|Hiley, Joseph||Onslow, Cranley||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Holland, Philip||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Hordern, Pet[...]||Parkinson, Cecil||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Hornby, Richard||Percival, Ian||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Pink, R. Bonner||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Pounder, Rafton||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hunt, John||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Younger, Hn. George|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Proudfoot, Wilfred||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|James, David||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Mr. Marcus Fox and|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Mr. Kenneth Clarke|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Raison, Timothy|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Bidwell, Sydney||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Bishop, E. S.||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Cant, R. B.|
|Ashley, Jack||Booth, Albert||Carmichael, Neil|
|Ashton, Joe||Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Braine, Sir Bernard||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Broughton, Sir Alfred||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Cohen, Stanley|
|Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Buchan, Norman||Concannon, J. D.|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Palmer, Arthur|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Cronin, John||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Pardoe, John|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||John, Brynmor||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Crouch, David||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Prescott, John|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Judd, Frank||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Kaufman, Gerald||Probert, Arthur|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kinnock, Neil||Radice, Giles|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Lambie, David||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Lamborn, Harry||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Deakins. Eric||Lamond, James||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Latham, Arthur||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lawson, George||Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Leadbitter, Ted||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Doig, Peter||Leonard, Dick||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lestor, Miss Joan||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Roper, John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Driberg, Tom||Lipton, Marcus||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lomas, Kenneth||Rowlands, Ted|
|Dunn, James A.||Loughlin, Charles||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McBride, Neil||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Ellis, Torn||McCartney, Hugh||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|English, Michael||McElhone, Frank||Sillars, James|
|Evans, Fred||McGuire, Michael||Silverman, Julius|
|Ewing, Harry||Machin, George||Skinner, Dennis|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Mackenzie, Gregor||Small, William|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)||Mackie, John||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mackintosh. John P.||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Foot, Michael||McNamara, J. Kevin||Stallard, A. W.|
|Ford, Ben||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Steel, David|
|Forrester, John||Malla[...]eu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Fraser,Rt.Kn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||Marquand, David||Stonehouse, Rt Hn. G. R.|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Marsden F.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J||Swain, Thomas|
|Garrett, W. E.||Mayhew, Christopher||Taverne, Dick|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||Meacher, Michael||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Golding, John||Mendelson, John||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mikardo, Ian||Tinn, James|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Millan, Bruce||Tope, Graham|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Torney, Tom|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Milne, Edward||Tuck, Raphael|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Hamling, William||Moate, Roger||Varley, Eric G.|
|Hardy, Peter||Molloy, William||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Harper, Joseph||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Walden, Brain (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Wallace, George|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Watkins, David|
|Hattersley, Roy||Moyle, Roland||Weitzman, David|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Murray, Ronald King||Wellbeloved, James|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Oakes, Gordon||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Horam, John||Ogden, Eric||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||O'Halloran, Michael||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||O'Malley, Brian||Whitelock, William|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Oram, Bert||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Orbach, Maurice||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Orme, Stanley||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Oswald, Thomas||Woof, Robert|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Padley, Walter||Mr. Donald Coleman and|
|Janner, Greville||Paget, R. T.||Mr. Michael Cocks|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time and passed.