§ Mr. John SmithI beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 5, at end insert:
'1(A) Any information which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue possess in connection with petroleum won by virtue of a licence granted under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934—This is a new point which was not touched upon in Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Secreary of State or an officer authorised by him so that royalty may be calculated accurately.
- (a) may be disclosed by the Commissioners to the Secretary of State, or to an officer of his who is authorised by him to receive such information, in connection with provisions of the licence relating to royalty payments; but
- (b) shall not be disclosed by a person to whom it is disclosed in pursuance of this subsection except as authorised by the licence or to a person to whom it could have been disclosed in pursuance of the preceding paragraph or for the purposes of proceedings (which may be arbitration proceedings) in connection with the licence'.
The need for the amendment arises because royalty evaluation under model clause 9(5), as numbered in Part II of Schedule 2, is to be linked to tax evaluation, and it is clearly essential that the Secretary of State should be able to check the royalty returns made by licensees. The only way of doing this is for him to have access to the returns accepted by the Inland Revenue for tax purposes.
Similarly it must be possible, as paragraph (b) provides, for the information to be used in arbitration proceedings. Paragraph (b) ensures that information passed to the Secretary of State for authorised officials for the purpose of checking royalty due shall be treated with the same confidentiality as information supplied to the Secretary of State under the licence terms—that is to say, it may not be disclosed to someone not in the service or employment of the Crown except with the licensee's consent. Therefore, there is no question of the BNOC becoming privy to the tax returns of its competitors. This is an inevitable amendment on the basis 1436 on which royalty payments are now to be assessed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. RostI beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 15, line 11, at end insert:
'(2A) Where a licence is revoked on the grounds of any act or omission occurring alter the licence was altered by virtue of the preceding section which act or omission would not have provided grounds for revocation of the licence had it occurred before the date of such alteration, and it is shown that the holder of the licence—Even this shameless Government must be feeling a flush of embarrassment about the unreasonably tight timetable being imposed under the guillotine. This has meant that we have had to curtail debates, and that many crucial and controversial matters affecting a key sector of the economy will not even be reached. It is most unsatisfactory that my colleagues and I will not have time to develop the detailed arguments which we as an Opposition feel that we should be able to develop on controversial and important matters.there shall be paid to him out of the National Oil Account full and prompt compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage'.
- (i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by revocation, or
- (ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation
One such is Amendment No. 146. This raises the most important principle—one of the most obnoxious aspects of this legislation—of retroactivity resulting in financial loss to licensees without compensation. This is one of the areas in this legislation causing a great deal of concern to the industry, and we have had no satisfactory assurances during lengthy Committee debates, we have had no assurances on the justification for retroactivity on licences and, even worse, we have not even had any assurance that there will be compensation where financial loss results from this retroactivity. My colleagues and I regard this as most unsatisfactory, quite unacceptable and completely unprecedented. It cannot be allowed to stand unamended.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for compensation to licensees whose licences are revoked under the new 1437 model clauses in circumstances where they would not have been revocable under the old model clauses. Those hon. Members who have followed the proceedings in Committee in detail will know that the new model clauses create many more possibilities of licence revocation than existed under the original terms. These new risks of licence revocation pose a real threat to licensees, especially where they are associated with the broad discretionary powers that the Government are taking. It is quite wrong that licensees should be confronted with the possibility—some of us suggest the probability—of having to forfeit their licences without compensation in such circumstances.
I wish that I could have developed at greater length the principles involved here about the problems which will result from this House allowing retroactivity to stand unamended. It creates the most important issues. First, it is quite contrary to the position which has always been taken by the United Kingdom Government in the past on many issues. It is quite unprecedented in Western Europe. It will create the most serious impact on the confidence which has always been placed politically in this country by foreign investors. It raises the most important principle that it invites or even encourages similar action in respect of British investments in other parts of the world.
10.30 p.m.
What justification will the British Government have to complain about confiscation without compensation of British investments abroad, as they have always done in the past, when they are setting this example? I could quote many examples of the British Government defending British investments abroad and claiming compensation. The Government's credibility will be undermined. It will never again be possible for us to uphold the rights of British companies abroad if we behave in this way. It could have serious repercussions. Furthermore, there are significant legal implications which the Government have not taken seriously enough. The rights of holders of licences may well be damaged without compensation.
In the interests of brevity, and so that we may at least refer to other crucial matters, I shall curtail what I wished to 1438 say. No case has been made out for retroactivity, and, even worse, there is no justification for accepting it without proper, prompt and full compensation. What the Government propose will create a most dangerous precedent. It will damage the standing of the British Government. It will endanger the status of British investments abroad. It will seriously jeopardise the confidence of foreign investors in this country. It should not be accepted without serious challenge.
§ Mr. SkeetI should not allow this occasion to pass without making a few observations. I can probably couch them in the form of questions to the Minister.
Why is this country breaking contracts which were entered into with the oil companies when the oil was not discovered? All the conditions are to be changed, without any attempt being made to negotiate with the oil companies, now that the oil has been discovered. The Secretary of State is prepared to negotiate with the oil companies on the basis of a 51 per cent. participation. He is not prepared to negotiate with them in order to revise the terms of the contracts which were negotiated at an earlier date.
This is a blatant breach of contract by the Government, whose purpose should be to secure the rights of the citizen. Why have they done it, and why is it done in this form? If the Secretary of State can give a precedent for what he is doing, I should like to hear of it.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Norway has not breached its contracts. It has studiously avoided that course. Australia has adopted the same legal propriety. Spain, in altering its regulations, has left the existing concessions exactly as they were. The Netherlands has respected the contracts. Greenland and the Republic of Ireland have adopted that course.
Why have the British Government, who pride themselves on the rule of law, espoused a cause which will lead to nations saying that we do not honour the laws which we pass? The Under-Secretary of State said that alterations would be made to enable model Clause 16 on depletion to be introduced. That could have been done simply by inserting 1439 a clause in the Bill. In order to bring these things in, however, many other model clauses have also been introduced. This is totally meaningless.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why this is to be done. Why have other countries not followed this precedent? Is he aware of the detrimental effect that this could have on one of our big companies—British Petroleum—in Alaska if the Americans were to adopt the same line? We could lose a substantial interest in the considerable reserves of oil in that locality.
It is well known that we have in our own law plenty of room for compensation to be made available. I mentioned this matter in Committee on the Coal Industry Bill 1975 when we discussed for some time where compensation for subsidence was payable by the National Coal Board. We discussed it on the Water Resources Act 1963 and on the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. If we have it as a precedent in our law, why cannot it be accepted here?
It would be a great shame on this Parliament if it were to take away rights of compensation from the citizen. All that the Secretary of State and his predecessor are prepared to say is that they will take this matter into account. There is no security in that. People are entitled to have laid down in statutory form that compensation will be paid if there is diminution of rights.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)What about the protection of workers' rights?
§ Mr. SkeetThe hon. Gentleman may say that, but we are dealing with the law of the land. I hope that while we protect workers' rights, which I would vouchsafe, the right hon. Gentleman will protect, not trample under foot, the rights of all the citizens of this realm. This is not the way to run a democracy. I hope that when the Secretary of State springs to his feet he will give the nation, which is watching carefully, a satisfactory explanation.
§ Dr. PhippsI think that the anger displayed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) is totally misplaced. We have debated this matter in the House on a number of occasions. Clause 19(2) makes it clear that this is not retroactive 1440 in any sense regarding licences already issued. It is retroactive only from the day that the legislation is passed.
Why are we passing this legislation? I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedford knows that we are passing it because of the abuses of the legislation which we have seen in the past.
§ Dr. PhippsIt will apply only to acts which take place after the passage of the Bill.
§ Mr. SkeetIt will alter the terms of contracts.
misconceived the situation. This Bill, on the day that it becomes an Act, will apply a diminution of rights in the licences themselves.
§ Dr. PhippsIt will alter the terms of contracts, but it will not apply to events which precede the passage of the Bill.
We are passing this legislation for reasons which we have debated before. There was considerable abuse of the terms of the licences. People were taking out licences, promoting them—in fact, selling them—pocketing the money and going to existing licences. Therefore, there is back to Alberta, Texas or wherever they came from. The Bill is intended to prevent that kind of abuse. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has no intention of stopping genuine farm-outs or farm-ins or other genuine practices within the industry. The intention is to stop people who have abused these practices and have given a bad name to them in this country.
§ Mr. SkeetOf course, every absolutist authority will say that it will break the law to get away from abuse. But it is interesting that all the countries which I itemised, including Norway, have not adopted this course. They have respected past licences. In this case the terms of the licences have been broken. The contracts have been torn up. New conditions will be imposed on each contract. The companies which have been in from the beginning will say that they are not interested.
§ Dr. PhippsI assure the House that not one bona fide company will mind these conditions being imposed it will be only the promoters and the charlatans who will be upset.
§ Mr. GrimondI argued in Committee against the breaches of contract which are inherent in parts of the Bill. I shall not do that again. I still maintain that this is a very great error in British legislation. The points which I want to raise again relate to compensation. It may well be true that there will be very few companies which under the present arrangements would be entitled to compensation, but the Minister agreed that there might be a diminution in the value of the licences owing to the provisions of the Bill. Both for the sake of our companies operating abroad and because of the precedents set by our neighbours around the North Sea, there should be better terms of compensation. Have the Government checked that what they propose is in accordance with international law?
§ Mr. BennThe issues raised in this debate are important. We discussed them in Committee. I believe that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have made heavy weather of this and have done so because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at stake.
The reason for the changes we are proposing is that the existing terms in the fourth round did not provide the opportunity for depletion control, control over conditional exploration or control over dealings in licences for another 40 years. Only in the first six years, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) knows, because he knows this subject very well, was there even a requirement to drill. For the rest, the Tory Government in 1971 handed out licences for nearly half a century without these basic safeguards in regard to priceless national resources.
If we are to have these matters elevated to high constitutional principle—if that is the way the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) wishes to discuss it—there is more than one high constitutional principle which can be marshalled in this debate. One is that no Parliament can bind its successors. If one Parliament were to choose to hand over the entire North Sea oil resources to some foreign company under arrangements that were manifestly damaging to the public interest, there is no concept in our domestic law that would make it improper for a subsequent Parliament to remedy the defects.
§ Mr. Rost rose—
§ Mr. BennThe hon. Gentleman must allow me to put this on the record, if he will be so kind. The question then arises as to retrospective legislation. I am no lawyer, but I understand that the main legal objection—indeed, the only legal objection—to retrospection in the ordinary sense is that Parliament should not act in such a way as to make illegal something that was legal at the time it was done.
These provisions do no such thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) pointed out, they make no change in past practice. They provide that, if we pass this legislation, from now on certain new conditions will come into operation.
§ Mr. BennThe hon. Gentleman should listen to my argument, because I am trying to address myself to what he said. The Government are continually changing the environment in which business operates—by budgetary measures, by legislation governing safety or by advertising standards—and by so doing are changing the environment in which all licence holders or contract holders operate in the United Kingdom.
I go further. The hon. Gentleman asked me to give him precedents. I do not have to strain my mind to do that. I refer to what happened in Norway, Alberta and Australia. The Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 introduced by the Tory Government gave the Government of the day—I welcomed it on behalf of the then Opposition—power to make far bigger changes on the licences that had been negotiated two years earlier than the provisions of this Bill confer.
I come now to the question of compensation and arbitration.
§ Mr. SkeetIf the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that one Government can alter relevant provisions if they find it expedient to do so, and given that the Government have taken a certain course in participation and negotiation, why do they not take the same line in altering the contractual terms which are to continue into the future and negotiate with the companies so that compensation can be determined and agreed?
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. BennThe hon. Gentleman knows very well the argument on participation and on the development of policy generally which the Government put forward. The arguments as regards depletion, exploration and drilling terms are, in our view, fundamental matters which fall quite properly within a range of legislation that any Government might introduce, and would come well within the precedents which could be cited of a kind to which I have referred, given the fact that we do not accept that compensation would be appropriate in these cases and that the question of arbitration does not arise.
In terms of the operation of the powers that we seek, we are bound to have very much in mind—I think I said this in Committee, but if I did not I say it now, and if I said it I repeat it—the two factors that have been mentioned in the debate, namely, the need for good working relations with the oil companies and the international repercussions following from what we might do.
There is nothing whatever in the taking of these powers that could conceivably be argued as a move towards expropriation or a breach of international law.
Mr. BeninThat could not arise in any sense, even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman's view, which I do not, until the powers were exercised.
For the reasons I have given, I believe that we were fully entitled to seek from Parliament the powers that are in the Bill. I believe that they are fully in line with the changes made in the environment in which licence and contract holders operate. I recommend the House not to accept the amendment.
§ Mr. SkeetIf the companies decided to take this matter to the International Court, the assent of the United Kingdom Government would be required. Would the United Kingdom Government give that assent?
§ Mr. BennThat is a hypothetical question that would not be for me to answer. If the hon. Gentleman re-reads what I have said, he will recognise that the Government have been able to give a complete answer to the arguments he has put 1444 forward. I invite the House not to accept the amendment.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinAfter seven and a half hours we have dealt with rather less than one-third of the amendments on the Paper, but the guillotine is shortly to fall. I regard it as an outrage that one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Government have introduced, on which no one has sought to argue that the Opposition have in any way filibustered or been unreasonably long in discussing, should be dealt with in this manner. The only reason for the introduction of the guillotine is that the Government were five months late in introducing the Bill. They have now run into serious timetable difficulties. It is appropriate that we should end the debate by voting in favour of the amendment, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.
It is appropriate that we should now be discussing an amendment which makes it clear that the Government are engaged in a blatant breach of international law in that they are proposing the, unilateral retrospective abrogation of contractual rights. They have embarked on a path which will serve them and future British Governments ill in future when they come to negotiate on behalf of British subjects whose property rights are abrogated in a similar way by other Governments. They will not have a leg to stand on. They are doing a gross disservice to themselves, to the British people and to the integrity of the British nation in taking powers unilaterally, without compensation, to abrogate proprietary rights.
The Secretary of State for Energy sought to offer two legal defences. The first was that the powers were needed. That has not been denied by us. We believe that we need to strengthen the powers, particularly in regard to depletion. We have said that on many occasions, both on Second Reading and in Committee. What is at issue is how those powers should be taken. If they could not have been adequately provided for by negotiation, the contractual rights could have been amended but could have been subject to the right of compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman's defence was that the powers were not retrospective in a true sense—in other words, 1445 that there were no changes to make illegal that which was legal. That is a view of retrospection which is so narrow that no lawyer would recognise it. Any change that alters the basis on which people enter into contractual agreements is to that extent retrospective. Where, however, those contractual agreements confer proprietary rights, international law recognises them as proprietary rights, and therefore the abrogation of those tights amounts to a taking away of property. The Government have sought to deny those rights and, indeed, to deny that they are proprietary rights.
I shall not repeat the authorities for our argument given by eminent international lawyers. I merely emphasise that over the years successive British Governments, including Labour Governments, have sought to argue in international fora and elsewhere that they are proprietary rights. There was a recent case in which the
| Division No. 307.] | AYES | [10.54 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Aitken, J. W. P. | Drayson, Burnaby | Heseltine, Michael |
| Alison, Michael | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Hicks, Robert |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Durant, Tony | Holland, Philip |
| Arnold, Tom | Dykes, Hugh | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Awdry, Daniel | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Hordern, Peter |
| Baker, Kenneth | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Howell, David (Guildford) |
| Banks, Robert | Elliott, Sir William | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Beith, A. J. | Emery, Peter | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) |
| Bell, Ronald | Eyre, Reginald | Hunt, John |
| Benyon, W. R. | Fairbairn, Nicholas | Hurd, Douglas |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Farr, John | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Biffen, John | Fell, Anthony | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Finsberg, Geoffrey | James, David |
| Blaker, Peter | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Jenkins, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) |
| Body, Richard | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.) | Jessel, Toby |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Fookes, Miss Janet | Jopling, Michael |
| Bowden, Andrew (Brighton) | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C.) | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Fox, Marcus | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Fry, Peter | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Brittan, Leon | Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. | Kimball, Marcus |
| Brotherton, Michael | Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) | King, Evlyn (South Dorset) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Kirk, Peter |
| Buchanan-Smith, Allck | Glyn, Dr Alan | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Buck, Antony | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | Knox, David |
| Budgen, Nick | Goodhart, Philip | Lamont, Norman |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Goodlad, A. | Lane, David |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Gorst, John | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Carlisle, Mark | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Latham, Michael (Melton) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Channon, Paul | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.) | Lawson, Nigel |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S) | Gray, Hamish | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Clark, William (Croydon, S.) | Grieve, Percy | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Griffiths, Eldon | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Cockcroft, John | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Grist, Ian | Loveridge, John |
| Cope, John | Grylls, Michael | Luce, Richard |
| Cordle, John H. | Hall, Sir John | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | McCrindle, Robert |
| Corrie, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Costain, A. P. | Hannam, John | MacGregor, John |
| Crouch, David | Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye) | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hn Miss | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Havers, Sir Michael | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Dean, Paul (N. Somerset) | Hawkins, Paul | Madel, David |
§ present Government, together with other Community Governments, sought to table an amendment to a United Nations resolution on compensation for the expropriation of rights. It is an irony—but a just irony—that we are now faced with this unjustifiable guillotine and are censuring the Government for breaching international law and upsetting contractual rights in relation to which previous Governments issued licences.
§ The amendment, which confines itself solely to compensation for revocation of licences in circumstances where those licences could not have been revoked under reasonable terms, is eminently reasonable and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:
§ The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 293.
| Marshal, Michael (Arundel) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Marten, Nell | Raison, Timothy | Stanley, John |
| Mates, Michael | Rathbone, Tim | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Mather, Carol | Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Steen, Anthony (Liverpool) |
| Maude, Angus | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Mawby, Ray | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Stokes, John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Renton, Rt Hn Sir D. (Hunts.) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.) |
| Mills, Peter | Ridsdale, Julian | Tebbitt, Norman |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Rifkind, Malcolm | Temple-Morris, P. |
| Moate, Roger | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Thatcher, Rt Hon M. |
| Monro, Hector | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.) | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Barnet) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Moore, John (Croydon C) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | Trotter, Neville |
| More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Morgan, Geraint | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Royle, Sir Anthony | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Morris, Michael (Northants) | Sainsbury, Tim | Viggers, Peter |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Scott, Nicholas | Wakeham, John |
| Mudd, David | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wall, Patrick |
| Neave, Airey | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) | Walters, Dennis |
| Nelson, Anthony | Shelton, William (Lambeth St.) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Neubert, Michael | Shepherd, Colin | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Newton, Tony | Shersby, Michael | Wells, John |
| Normanton, Tom | Sims, Roger | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Sinclair, Sir George | Wiggin, Jerry (Weston-s-Mare) |
| Page, John (Harrow West) | Skeet, T. H. H. | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) | Wood, Rt Hon Richard |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Penhaligon, David | Spence, John | Younger, Hon George |
| Percival, Ian | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | |
| Peyton, Rt Hon John | Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Sproat, Iain | Mr. Fred Silvester and |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Stainton, Keith | Mr. Russell Fairgrieve. |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank | Conlan, Bernard | Ford, Ben |
| Anderson, Donald | Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Forrester, John |
| Archer, Peter | Corbett, Robin | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N) |
| Ashley, Jack | Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Freeson, Reginald |
| Ashton, Joe | Crawshaw, Richard | Garrett, John (Norwich S.) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Cronin, John | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | George, Bruce |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Cryer, Bob | Gilbert, Dr John |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Cunningham, G. (Islington S.) | Ginsburg, David |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.) | Golding, John |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Dalyell, Tam | Gould, Bryan |
| Bates, Alf | Davidson, Arthur | Gourlay, Harry |
| Bean, Robert E. | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.) | Graham, Ted |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Grant, George (Morpeth) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Grant, John (Islington C.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C.) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Bishop, E. S. | Deakins, Eric | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) |
| Boardman, H. | de Fraitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Booth, Albert | Delargy, Hugh | Hart, Rt Hon Judith |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Hatton, Frank |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Dempsey, James | Hayman, Mrs Helene |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck.) | Doig, Peter | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Bradley, Tom | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.) | Dunn, James A. | Hooley, Frank |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle) | Dunnett, Jack | Horam, John |
| Brown, Ronald (Hackney S.) | Eadie, Alex | Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) |
| Buchan, Norman | Edelman, Maurice | Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Edge, Geoffrey | Huckfield, Leslie |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey) | Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.) | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P.) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Campbell, Ian | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.) |
| Canavan, Dennis | English, Michael | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Cant, R. B. | Ennals, David | Hunter, Adam |
| Carmichael, Neil | Evans, Ioan L. (Aberdare) | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (L'pool) |
| Carter, Rav | Evans, John (Newton) | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) |
| Cartwright, John | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Faulds, Andrew | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Janner, Greville |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Jeger, Mrs Lena |
| Cohen, Stanley | Flannery, Martin | Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth) |
| Coleman, Donald | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham, St) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | John, Brynmor |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Stallard, A. W. |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Murray, Ronald King | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Newens, Stanley | Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F) |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Noble, Mike | Stoddart, David |
| Jones, Dan (Burniey) | Oakes, Gordon | Stott, Roger |
| Judd, Frank | Ogden, Eric | Strang, Gavin |
| Kaufman, Gerald | O'Halloran, Michael | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. |
| Kelley, Richard | O'Malley, Brian | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Kerr, Russell | Orbach, Maurice | Swain, Thomas |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Ovenden, John | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Kinnock, Neil | Owen, Dr David | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Lambie, David | Padley, Walter | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle) |
| Lamborn, Harry | Palmer, Arthur | Thomas, Ronald (Bristol N.W.) |
| Lamond, James | Park, George | Thompson, George |
| Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Parker, John | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Parry, Robert | Tierney, Sydney |
| Lee, John | Pavitt, Laurie | Tinn, James |
| Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Tomlinson, John |
| Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.) | Pendry, Tom | Tomney, Frank |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Perry, Ernest | Torney, Tom |
| Lipton, Marcus | Phipps, Dr Colin | Tuck, Raphael |
| Litterick, Tom | Prescott, John | Urwin, T. W. |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Price, Christopher (Lewisham W) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Loyden, Eddie | Price, William (Rugby) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.) |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Radice, Giles | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Richardson, Miss Jo | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| McCartney, Hugh | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| McElhone, Frank | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Watkins, David |
| MacFarquhar, R. | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Watkinson, John |
| McGuire Michael (Ince) | Roderick, Caerwyn | Watt, Hamish |
| Mackenzie, Gregor | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Weetch, Ken |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Weitzman, David |
| Maclennan, Robert | Rooker, J. W. | Wellbeloved, James |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.) | Roper, John | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Rose, Paul B. | White, James (Pollok) |
| Madden, Max | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Magee, Bryan | Rowlands, Ted | Whitlock, William |
| Mahon, Simon | Ryman, John | Wlgley, Dafydd (Caernarvon) |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Sandelson, Neville | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Marks, Ken | Sedgemore, B. | Williams, Alan (Swansea) |
| Marquand, David | Selby, Harry | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilf.) | Williams, Rt Hn Shirley (Hertford) |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Maynard, Joan | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Meacher, Michael | Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C) | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.) |
| Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) | Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish.) | Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.) |
| Millan, Bruce | Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge) | Sillars, James | Woof, Robert |
| Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Silverman, Julius | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Molloy, William | Skinner, Dennis | Young, David (Bolton E.) |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Small, William | |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Snape, Peter | Mr Joseph Harper and |
| Moyle, Roland | Spriggs, Leslie | Mr. J. D. Dormand |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ 11.8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerUnder the orders of the House of 7th July and of today, I must now put the Question on the remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government. As these are a considerable number of amendments, and as, so far as I am aware, there is no wish in any quarter of the House to divide against any of them, I propose to put the Question on the amendments in groups, reading out the numbers of the amendments in each group.
If any hon. Member wishes to divide the House on any amendment, I should be obliged—I do not say I should be very happy— if he would indicate that fact when I read out the number of the amendment concerned.
§ It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and Orders [7th July and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.