§ Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, leave out "3".
§ Mr. SpeakerI assume that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the hon. Member's second amendment, in Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 9 to 17.
§ Sir B. BraineThese amendments seek to remove from the Bill all reference to the provision of a spur line linking the mainland with Canvey Island in order to serve the purposes of two proposed oil refineries. Let me say right at the outset that I have absolutely no quarrel with the rest of the Bill and I hope that if my amendments are accepted the Bill will make rapid progress. Its purpose was explained with great clarity by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on Second Reading and again today. But the provision I am seeking to delete, which is described in the Bill as "Work No. 3", touches, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, upon a matter of major controversy on both sides of the Thames, in Essex 1634 and Kent and particularly on Canvey Island which is in my constituency. Moreover, for reasons which hon. Members will readily appreciate, the controversy has taken a sharper and more urgent character since the terrible disaster at Flixborough.
I set out the history of the matter and the nature of our objections to further oil refinery development in the Thames Estuary in considerable detail on Second Reading. I will not go over the same ground now save to remind the House of certain salient facts because these are absolutely fundamental to any fair consideration of the amendments I am asking the House to accept.
First, as a result of planning decisions made by both Labour and Conservative Governments, two new oil refineries are to be built on Canvey Island which comprises less than 4,000 acres and yet provides homes for no fewer than 30,000 people. Once those refineries are built nearly one-half of the island, where a large population has been encouraged by the planning industry to make their homes, will be occupied by oil, gas and chemical installations and storage tanks which are officially classified as hazardous. The two refineries are being introduced despite continued and bitter opposition from residents, the local district council and the planning authority, and after I have repeatedly drawn the attention of Parliament to the risks involved. In my view what has been done in this regard is—I choose my words carefully—criminally irresponsible.
Secondly, even without these refineries it is now generally accepted that Canvey already has too great a concentration of high fire risks for the health and safety of its inhabitants. Currently we have no fewer than 100 million gallons capacity storage of inflammable and dangerous material on the island, some of it perilously near people's homes.
The danger was freely acknowledged as recently as last November by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who was the then Minister for Local Government and Development in the Department of the Environment. He was the only Minister in the Department who had the sense to go and look at the area and judge whether, to use his words, we were reaching "saturation point"
1635 with these installations. This was what he said:
a few weeks ago, because of my anxiety"—the same anxiety as my hon. Friend has expressed—whether we were reaching saturation point with oil refineries in this area, I spent the whole morning flying over it in a helicopter, because one gets a much better impression of this sort of development from the air. From that experience, I believe that my hon. Friend is right—that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further development of this kind in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 903–4.]He went on to assure the House that following his examination from the air he was having discussions with his colleagues and was considering the matter.That went some way towards meeting my repeated requests that before any additional hazards were added to those already in the area we ought to have an inquiry into the totality of the effect of all these separate planning decisions, including the one envisaged in the Bill, on the environment of my constituents.
That was seven months ago. All that has happened since is that, despite the promises made during the election by no less a person than the Prime Minister to look into this matter, such an inquiry has been refused. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment has let it be known that he is minded—those are his words—to authorise a third refinery opposite us at Cliffe in Kent.
It is against this background, therefore, that we should view the provision in the Bill to which I take such strong objection. Work No. 3 involves the provision of a rail link with Canvey cutting through the little green belt left to us in South-East Essex, crossing the creek which divides the island from the mainland by a bridge, and then on to the rail depot in the middle of the new refineries. In effect it would add one more hazard to those which we already have, because only a fool would deny that there are always risks in handling and transshipping highly inflammable products.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, anticipating my remarks, argued that if we are to have refineries it is safer to move dangerous substances by rail rather than by road. May I say in passing that I still refuse to believe that after Flixborough the Government 1636 will dare to permit these additions to our existing and considerable accumulation of risks. However the hon. Member is right to say that it is safer to move such substances by rail rather than by road, and I serve notice here and now that we shall fight tooth and nail against any increase in hazardous traffic on the restricted roads in South-East Essex. On the other hand, movement by pipeline is far safer than movement by rail.
If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt about that, let him consult the fire services. Every fire service in the country will give him a clear answer. It is our contention, therefore, that if we are to have these monstrosities inflicted upon us there should be no movement of the product off Canvey Island by rail. Such movement should be by pipeline.
Here we come to the crux of the matter. This is where I invite all hon. Members to consider not only whether the provision in the Bill is objectionable but whether it is even necessary. One of the two refineries proposed does not need a railway link at all. In a letter dated 11th January, the Chief Legal Adviser and Solicitor of British Rail told me:
It is perhaps worth mentioning that Occidental Oil Ltd are unlikely now to want direct rail access to their refinery, favouring, for technical reasons, loading sidings on the mainland, serviced by Work No. 1 "—which incidentally was authorised by the British Railways Act 1972—" to which their product would be pumped by pipeline.Thus the rail link is not necessary in respect of one of the refineries.7.15 p.m.
As to the other refinery, British Rail already has power to build a line on the mainland up to the creek. This power was given to it in the 1972 Act and will not expire until 31st December 1975. That was confirmed to me by British Rail's Legal Adviser in the same letter. Thus there is no need for this provision at all and certainly no need for it before the end of 1975. In any event, for the sake of safety the rail terminal should be on the other side of the creek in the view of my constituents and the local authority. It makes sense that it should be as far away from the residential areas as possible with a water barrier in between.
In any event it is madness to contemplate giving powers to bring the line on to the island before the results of the Flixborough inquiry and its implications have 1637 been made fully known to this House and, perhaps even more important, to my constituents. For me, and I hope the House as a whole, the issue is clear. Surely no one has the right to add additional hazards to the already endangered environment of my constituency—neither the Government, arguing as they do in this case that the national interest requires that our amenities and our safety should take second place, nor any statutory undertaking.
There is one other consideration which I know the local authority would wish me to mention. Canvey Island is now in the new Castle Point District Council area. The council, which is Labour-controlled, is unanimously opposed to the provisions of the Bill because of the impact the rail link will have on our much-threatened amenities. For example, it argues that the line will traverse an area of flat, pleasant green belt land which gives a feeling of spaciousness rare in South Essex. The council tells me that with the advent of the dominating oil refineries from the south, it is important that the contrast between the intervening rural area and the industrial installations should not be impaired. In the view of the district council, the proposed rail link and viaduct across the creek would damage the rural character and reduce the effectiveness of this part of the proposed green belt. The district council urges that a less conspicuous means of transporting the refinery products should be selected, such as an underground pipeline, and that the proposal to construct an extended rail link should be opposed.
Thus there is no need for this provision at all. It is not only objectionable; it is unnecessary. I am truly atonished that British Rail is so lacking in sensitivity and imagination that in the face of the arguments I put up on Second Reading it still insists on its retention, all the more so because since Second Reading we have had the experience of the Flixborough disaster and widespread comment in the national Press about the implications for my constituency.
I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is a reasonable and fair man. We have served together on several Select Committees. I hope that after hearing my argument and that of others who may contribute to the debate he will voluntarily with 1638 draw this provision. If he cannot find it in his heart to do so, I trust that the House will give British Rail a short, sharp answer by accepting my amendments and striking this objectionable and unnecessary provision out of the Bill.
§ Mr. John Wakeham (Maldon)I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). He is certainly well known in this House, and I have discovered from my short time here that he is particularly well known for fighting the causes of his constituents with vigour. I will not repeat all the arguments he advanced on Second Reading. I represent 30,000 of the people whom he represented before the last election. Therefore I know full well the strength of feeling of the people in this part of South-East Essex. They are concerned about the situation and their feelings have been put strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East.
I wish the Bill no harm and it has my general support, but I believe that it would be better if it were amended in the way proposed. There are 300,000 people living in the southern part of Essex, and if two more refineries are sited in the area there will then be four refineries in all on that part of the Essex coast. That is far too many on Thames-side.
§ Mr. George CunninghamThe Bill is not concerned with authorising or not authorising refineries. It relates to a stretch of railway one mile in length.
§ Mr. WakehamI appreciate that point, but the nation and the House has been shocked by the tragedy of Flixborough. The Chief Inspector of Factories has been giving warnings of the dangers of these processes for years. I believe that a rail link is not the best way of transporting dangerous products in this area. If the amendment is accepted, it will give an opportunity to consider the matter again when the inspector has made his report on the Flixborough disaster. We can learn from that lesson and avoid possible tragedies.
§ Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)Anybody who heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) cannot fail to be anxious about this issue. He 1639 put his argument with fervour and perhaps with passion, and on earlier occasions it may be said that his case was presented with more restraint and moderation.
We can well understand how he and his constituents must feel when they are given no satisfactory explanation about the situation thrown up by the Bill. There is concern not only in Essex, but also in places far distant from that area, following the publicity given to this matter by my hon. Friend in respect of the dangers which can come to Canvey Island. Therefore, I hope that there will be some reconsideration of this matter relating to Work No. 3. If a satisfactory explanation or assurance is not now given, then the matter will have to go to a vote.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)I wish to support the amendment and I hope that it will succeed. I shall ask my hon. Friends—those who appear, and I believe that there will be quite a number—to vote for the amendment. We have given undertakings to many residents in Canvey Island that the Liberal Party will support this proposal.
We must remember that since 1950 the population of Canvey Island has been allowed to rise from a figure of 7,000 to 30,000. It is natural that those people should be anxious about the situation following the Flixborough disaster. We should like to see far greater urgency on these matters and refineries not being allowed to multiply.
Reference has been made to a letter which has been received on the subject by no less a person than the present Prime Minister. I would remind the House that the letter, dated 18th February and signed by the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, said:
There is a very strong case for a thorough and full investigation of the whole affair, pending which no planning permission would be granted.A great deal of evidence has been given to me on this matter, and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has already given the House a full account of the situation. It must be said that there is a fire risk since the edge of the EMI complex will be only 200 yards from homes. There will be only two exits and this will be insufficient in a case of emergency. Then there is the 1640 question of pollution. I understand that 40 tons of sulphur dioxide would be emitted daily into the atmosphere. Then there is the hazard of tankers with a very large capacity. I have before me an account of what happened when one small ship ran aground in Canvey not so long ago. The people of Canvey do not trust public inquiries, for on three occasions decisions favourable to the islanders have later been reversed.
§ Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? It seems to me that the case for the oil refinery has been settled, and if I am wrong perhaps I shall be corrected. Is there any evidence to show that rail-borne oil tankers are a hazard in any part of the country, and can he say whether there has been any accident to cause the concern to which he refers?
§ Mr. RossThere was the recent accident in Slough and on that occasion I remember seeing on television housewives remonstrating with lorry drivers.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I listened with sympathy to the case put by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) who made his point ably and forcefully, but if the amendment is carried what compulsion will be placed on the oil company to use the pipeline? Would not the oil companies turn to the most immediate form of transport—namely, road transport. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that rail is preferable to road.
§ Mr. RossI should like to see far more traffic of this nature involving oil and oil products going by rail. In terms of Canvey, which has only two points of access to the island, that would seem to make a great deal of sense. But, as I understand the situation, the planning authority could insist that oil should be taken from the island by pipeline. It can lay down that condition.
To turn to my own constituency, the Isle of Wight, there have been some recent borings for oil. Unfortunately, none has been found. We were concerned to know how the oil would get from the Isle of Wight to the refinery at Fawley and we were told that we could lay down conditions that it should go by pipeline. This seems to be on a par with the situation in Canvey.
1641 I refer to a Parliamentary Question asked recently of the Secretary of State for the Environment by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I am afraid that I have no later information than the Answer. It points out that the Secretary of State does not propose to take a decision on the hon. Gentleman's request to revoke the existing planning permission until the outcome of the present negotiations is known. But that is all pre-Flixborough, and the situation is still open for a Ministerial intervention.
If the clause remains in the Bill, it will be interpreted as a further breach of faith with the electors of Canvey and an indication that the holocaust at Flixborough still has not been interpreted properly. I cannot feel that a Labour Government will permit the development of further oil refineries at Canvey. That being the case, the clause ought to be withdrawn.
§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)It has been said that Kent also has an interest in this issue. Speaking as a Kent Member, I confirm that that is so. My constituency is a few miles across the estuary from that of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), and we in Kent are deeply concerned about the general question of siting refineries on the Thames estuary. I also speak out of concern for the sheer common sense of planning.
In supporting my hon. Friend, I join the tributes which have been paid by other hon. Members to the campaign that he has waged. At times, it seemed impossible to open a newspaper, to turn on the radio or to come to this House without hearing him expressing the case on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that other electors must wish that they had so forceful an elected champion.
I want also to express sympathy for the promoters of the Bill who, to some extent, are innocent victims. Those hon. Members who are concerned about British Rail should understand that in a similar position they too would seek every possible means of protecting their constituents.
I submit that there is a strong case for accepting the amendment and for raising 1642 this matter as a means of trying to persuade the Government to think again about the whole of this planning exercise. Too often in these major planning decisions there is a bureaucratic finality once a decision has been taken. But surely with events such as the Flixborough disaster in our minds, we must as a society have the means to think again. Planning permission has been granted, but does that mean that inexorably we go on to make the mistake worse and worse?
Here we have a high fire risk activity in an area close to a large residential population. That flies in the face of common sense, and as a society we must have the opportunity to think again.
Out of concern for all these matters and out of general concern for considerations of common sense in industrial planning, I hope that the promoters will accept the amendment and so give the planning authorities an opportunity to think again.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)I intervene because it is customary for a Government spokesman to state briefly the Government's position on a' Private Bill on these occasions.
The House will recall that the Bill was fully debated on Second Reading, and there is little I can add to what was said on that occasion and to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in his report on the Bill to Parliament.
He has no objections to any of the provisions in the Bill. As far as the length of rail to be constructed on to Canvey Island is concerned I can only reiterate that this simply enables a rail link to be provided to an oil refinery, planning permission for which has already been given.
We understand the argument of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), and we admire the great diligence with which he has put his constituents' case, but it does not arise particularly and peculiarly on this Bill. I am aware that the hon. Member has requested my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set in train the revocation of that permission—but it would not be appropriate for me to comment this evening on what the Secretary of State told the hon. Member.
1643 The Bill is merely seeking the authorisation of certain rail works—works which obviously will be constructed only if and when the oil refinery is completed. If any change were to take place in the refinery proposals, no doubt the board would have to think again about the construction of these works.
I therefore ask the House to accept the findings of the committee which examined the Bill with the benefit of expert evidence, and to follow the normal convention on Private Bills by allowing the Bill to proceed intact.
§ Mr. CryerI intervene briefly simply to say that I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Sir B. Braine) will withdraw his amendment. As I understand it, the planning consent which has been given for the refinery is not in issue here, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about it and agree that he is right to use every opportunity to raise it. However, it does not have attached to it a condition that a pipeline shall be used. If that was a condition, these works would not arise.
My fear is that, if these clauses are withdrawn and authority is not given to British Rail to provide rail transport, the House will be faced with a request for power to construct these works, which will mean additional expense and further delay. As a consequence, any oil company will far more easily and readily choose road transport, rather than go through the unnecessary procedure of obtaining planning consent to construct a pipeline which, as I say, is not a condition attached to the consent for the refinery.
§ Sir Bernard BraineThe position is that the powers to provide rail access to the mainland opposite Canvey Island already exist and will remain until the end of 1975. One refinery does not need the railway. The other can pipe its products across the creek. That is an additional safety precaution. It is what the islanders desire. The hon. Gentleman's argument is unrealistic except to the extent that he has touched upon the considerable powers of a planning authority to lay down conditions under which refineries operate. I have been assured again and again by the Secretary of State for the Environment that these powers 1644 exist with regard to safety, and so on. There is no question of the product going on to the road. Pipeline is the answer.
§ Mr. CryerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept that pipeline is the answer. That is not disputed. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has power to require the planning conditions that the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, my right hon. Friend has not made that a condition to the consent for the refinery.
As I have said before about a number of other issues, although I accept that the Secretary of State may give assurances, they are not a sufficient guarantee to replace written consent. Therefore, my concern simply is to ensure that these powers are not deleted from the Bill with the result that, when existing powers run out, British Railways have to come back to the House and the whole scheme is lost in a morass of bureaucratic ineptitude, which is a distinct possibility.
I hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will satisfy me about these matters.
§ Mr. George CunninghamOne lesson to be learned from this debate is that the House is right to have the very rigorous procedures that it has adopted for the processing of Private Bills. The procedures provide for a quasi-judicial examination of the issues in a Private Bill Committee where highly expensive representatives—not incompetent people like me—can put the details of the case and where they can be examined in an impartial atmosphere. That has been done not just in respect of other provisions but in respect of this one as well. It can be done again when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. That is the way in which Parliament, in its wisdom—it was very wise to adopt this procedure for this kind of Bill—has provided for the examination of this kind of issue.
§ Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but I am sure that he would not wish the House to draw the wrong conclusions. As I understand it, the purpose of these Committees making what he rightly called a quasi-judicial examination is that they should not so much take decisions for the House as reach findings on which the House may or may not 1645 decide to act. In other words, the Committees are much more of an advisory character than a decisive character.
§ Mr. CunninghamI completely accept that nothing that a Committee does binds the House and that the House is taking a decision tonight. What I am saying is that the House should be wary in procedures in the Chamber about overriding what has been done or not done in Committee and what can be done or not done in the House of Lords by the same rigorous procedures in the kind of atmosphere that I have described. There were petitions against the Bill which were withdrawn when another work in the earlier draft turned out not to be necessary.
The other feature of the discussion is that everyone has argued against the refineries. We all know that what is troubling the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is the existence of the refineries. It is not that he is saying that they are all right but he objects to this railway line; he is using—I do not blame him and I would do the same in his circumstances—this opportunity for discussing the rail link to put his case against the siting of the refinery.
§ Sir Bernard BraineI am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. I am not arguing against the existence of two oil refineries since these have not yet been completed. I am pointing out the existence of other known industrial hazards and saying that it is wrong to add the refineries to them. I am going further and saying that to bring a rail depot handling oil to the island is to add yet a further hazard. To do that is wrong. I am sure that the House has grasped that point even if the hon. Gentleman has not. This is a serious matter. If the amendment is not accepted I know that the feeling in my constituency will be, once again, one of betrayal.
§ Mr. CunninghamI am sure that that is the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position. He will understand that the House is not deciding tonight whether there should be a rail link on to the island. There is already statutory provision for that. The hon. Gentleman has not taken any opportunity, as he could even on this restricted Bill, to delete the 1646 statutory authority that British Rail now has to put—
§ Sir B. Braine rose—
§ Mr. CunninghamEven in the Chamber, the matter can be more impartially stated if I can get a sentence out without interruption.
British Rail has statutory authority for the first mile roughly of the spur railway.
§ Sir B. BraineI said so.
§ Mr. CunninghamWith respect, I thought that, in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman implied that the rail link should stop at the creek—
§ Sir B. BraineI did.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. CunninghamBut there is statutory authority for the rail link to proceed beyond the creek. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take some opportunity, which he could, to move that that existing statutory authority be removed, I could see the logic of his position. But what he is saying is that the statutory authority to proceed beyond the creek by some distance which I forget should not be extended by a further mile to reach the installations in respect of which planning permission has been given and construction is taking place.
The Secretary of State of course has power to revoke the planning permissions which have been given. I suggest that that is the direction in which hon. Gentlemen should be pressing their activities. That is the only way in which they can terminate, safeguard or limit the refinery activities there. They will not remove the abuse by preventing a one-mile stretch of single-track railway. They would have to get the Secretary of State to withdraw the planning permissions if this operation were to succeed.
One does not operate on a major matter like that by starting with a small and consequential matter like the rail link. It would be foolish administration to do so. I would go further and say that if any Government committed such an administrative folly we should all come down on them like a ton of bricks. That is where hon. Members should be pressing their activities. I should have great sympathy with that, but one cannot put the cart before the horse.
1647 About two or three weeks ago, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East spoke, as he has done tonight, feelingly on this subject. On that occasion, he had the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). He always has had that support because my hon. Friend's constituency is also affected by these refineries. But I know that my hon. Friend does not oppose the rail link because that is not what is troubling him in his constituency.
§ Sir B. BraineHe has every sympathy.
§ Mr. CunninghamI have discussed the point with my hon. Friend and I understand that he is strongly opposed to the refineries but not to the rail link. I had not intended to refer to his opinions, but since the hon. Gentleman implied that he supports him on this occasion, it is fair to say that.
§ Sir B. BraineThe hon. Gentleman of course has the disadvantage of talking of an area about whose geography he knows nothing. May I help him? Neither the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) nor I are opposed to a rail spur which reaches the other side of the creek opposite Canvey Island. There is no difference between us on that. All I am saying—I am certain that if the hon. Member were here he would agree—is that we on Canvey Island have enough hazards already without inviting an extension of the rail link and the establishment of an oil depot—one more hazard on ton of the others.
All we are insisting is that since one refinery does not want the rail link anyway, the other should pipe its products across the island to join the railway on the other side. That is all that we are asking, and it is monstrous to ignore the point which concerns the 30,000 inhabitants of Canvey Island—namely, that we already have too many hazards. Why should we have any more?
§ Mr. CunninghamI understand that. Although I am not as familiar as the hon. Member with the geography of the area—no one would expect me to be—none the less I have done my best to familiarise myself with the geography which is relevant to the proposition.
I note that the stretch of line already authorised and which is not at issue tonight stretches over the creek by approximately a third of its length. It is the further extension from that point which is at issue. As for the pipeline argument, I am advised that some of the products that might be produced might not be capable of transmission by pipeline. I put it no stronger than that, but that is the advice that I have been given.
It is also a fact that most—nearly all—refineries in the country are served by rail and that this is regarded as one of the more desirable forms of transportation—certainly far more desirable than transmission by road. If the transmission from pipeline to rail were to take place far back towards the main line—which is what the hon. Gentleman suggested, I think—that transmission would take place much nearer to Benfleet than it would if the Bill is passed as it stands.
Finally, I repeat that the Bill has been through the quasi-judicial processes of a Private Bill Committee. There were opportunities then to object to this proposal, which were not taken. Nevertheless, there are further opportunities in the House of Lords to put forward objections by petition, in the usual way, and to have them treated extremely carefully—far more carefully than they would be looked at on the Floor of the House. In view of the opportunity for that process to take place, I hope that the House will agree that the amendment should not be accepted.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 141.
1649| Division No. 55.] | AYES | [7.52 p.m. |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Crowder, F. P. | Hampson, Dr. Keith |
| Ancram, M. | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Banks, Robert | Durant, Tony | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) |
| Biffen, John | Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.) | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine |
| Body, Richard | Fairgrieve, Russell | Kilfedder, James A. |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Fookes, Miss Janet | Kimball, Marcus |
| Budgen, Nick | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Corrie, John | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Knight, Mrs. Jill |
| Crouch, David | Grylls, Michael | Knox, David |
| Latham, Arthur (Melton) | Redmond, Robert | Tyler, Paul |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Waddington, David |
| MacArthur, Ian | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're) | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| McCrindle, R. A. | Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex) | Wakeham, John |
| McLaren, Martin | Sims, Roger | Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch) |
| Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridgeWells) | Stanbrook, Ivor | Winstanley, Dr. Michael |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Steel, David | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch) | Temple-Morris, Peter | |
| Molyneaux, James | Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy | Mr. Roger Moate and |
| Newton, Tony (Braintree) | Townsend, C. D. | Mr. Stephen Ross. |
| NOES | ||
| Archer, Peter | Freeson, Reginald | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Galpern, Sir Myer | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Ashton, Joe | George, Bruce | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Golding, John | Perry, Ernest G. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Gourlay, Harry | Phipps, Dr. Colin |
| Bishop, E. S. | Grant, John (Islington, C.) | Prescott, John |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside) | Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.) |
| Boardman, H. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Radice, Giles |
| Booth, Albert | Hamilton, William (Fife, C.) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Harper, Joseph | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Roderick, Caerwyn E. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) | Hooley, Frank | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Buchan, Norman | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn) | Hunter, Adam | Sandelson, Neville |
| Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich) | John, Brynmor | Sedgemore, Bryan |
| Campbell, Ian | Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W) | Selby, Harry |
| Cant, R. B. | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Sillars, James |
| Cocks, Michael | Judd, Frank | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cohen, Stanley | Kaufman, Gerald | Small, William |
| Coleman, Donald | Kelley, Richard | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) |
| Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N. | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.) | Lamond, James | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill) | Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw) | Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth. Fulh'm) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Leadbitter, Ted | Stott, Roger |
| Cronin, John | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Strang, Gavin |
| Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n & F'sb'ry) | Loughlin, Charles | Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.) |
| Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n) | Loyden, Eddie | Tierney, Sydney |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Tinn, James |
| Davidson, Arthur | McCartney, Hugh | Tomlinson, John |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.) | McElhone, Frank | Urwin, T. W. |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Maclennan, Robert | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | McNamara, Kevin | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Dempsey, James | Madden, M. O. F. | Watt, Hamish |
| Doig, Peter | Mahon, Simon | Wellbeloved, James |
| Dormand, J. D. | Mallalleu, J. P. W. | White, James |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Marks, Kenneth | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Dunn, James A. | Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth | Meacher, Michael | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.) |
| Eadie, Alex | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Wise, Mrs. Audrey |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Millan, Bruce | Woodall, Alec |
| English, Michael | Molloy, William | Woof, Robert |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Young, David (Bolton, E.) |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Murray, Ronald King | |
| Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th) | O'Halloran, Michael | |
| Flannery, Martin | O'Malley, Brian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Orbach, Maurice | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael | Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley | Mr. Ted Graham. |
| Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin) | Palmer, Arthur |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
1650§ Bill to be read the Third time.