TRANSPORT BILL (Hansard, 17 May 1978)

HC Deb 17 May 1978 vol 950 cc599-740 599

§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
I resume my feet in almost as much surprise as when I sat down. I shall now continue—the House having had a worthy break from my quotations from various clauses in the Bill. For a bit of variety we ought to switch to Schedule 2. I was building up the anticipation of the House by referring to the expectations of the normal county dweller which will be beating in his breast when he reads Clause 1. When we come to Schedule 2, which deals with the traffic commissioners, and we see there a classic illustration of the two parties, one being democratic with all the local democracy of this Bill and the other being an appointed, undemocratic and often criticised body.
I come to Schedule 2(1)(2A) and resume where my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne left off. The same sense of the new clause is included here, but it is not given sufficient priority. The point I am specifically making is that this operates against the expectations of Clause 1, because we have in Schedule 2(1)(2A) a reference to the interests of the public". I pause there to suggest that that is a commendable thing, upon which I congratulate the Government and, in particular, the Under-Secretary of State. That is a promotion from the past criteria of the traffic commissioners which is long overdue. After the interests of the public we then have paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). But it is only in (a) that we have the corresponding reference which grants the power to negative all the verbiage in Clause 1 about which I was talking.
Paragraph (a) provides that the traffic commissioners shall have regard in particular to 600 any transport policies or plans which have been made by the local authorities concerned and have been drawn to the commissioners' attention by those authorities. The following paragraphs set out a whole lot of other criteria which could be in conjunction with or in direct opposition to that already considered by the county council, namely, the transport requirements of the area as a whole, the need to provide and maintain efficient services to meet those requirements, and the suitability of the routes. In addition, at some late hour tomorrow morning we shall be considering another very worthy amendment about the disabled. That is the situation, and I mention it because it provides the detail to what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been saying.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe made a statesmanlike speech, and there was not a great deal to criticise in it. However, being unable to criticise the hon. Member's speech, I ought to direct the attention of the House to this new clause. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State is about to rise and accept this new clause and htat he will deal with the valid argument that I am about to advance.
New Clause No. 4, as drafted, gives priority to the counties in terms of the traffic commissioners. The traffic commissioners shall give first consideration to the transport policies and plans of the local authorities. However, there is no related amendment concerning Schedule 2, so we shall have a completely new clause which says that the commissioners shall give first consideration to the county plans. But then, when we come to the exercise of the traffic commissioners' powers, which is what Schedule 2 is about, that remains exactly as it is.
It may be that I am making a point that the Under-Secretary of State intended to make, but I hope that he will say in his nice way that the Government intend to propose additional amendments to Schedule 2 to make it even stronger than it is now.
At the moment, if this new clause is accepted, all that is necessary is that the commissioners give first consideration to the TPPs of the local authorities, and then go straight on, having looked at the detail of how they should give that first consideration, to consider the detail set 601 out in Schedule 2, which provides exactly the same provisions in paragraph (a), coming close to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was discussing.
I hope that the Government, with the assistance and drafting aid at their disposal, 602 will say, through the Under Secretary of State, that they accept the new clause and will help the House further by tidying up Schedule 2 as well. This is a worthy proposal, and we wait impatiently for the Government to accept it.

603

§ Mr. Horam
This debate has been positively aglow with reasonableness and common sense, with statesmanlike attitudes being adopted on both sides of the House and with compliments flowing from one side to the other in the most amazing fashion. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) actually asked me not only to accept the new clause but also to clear up any minor complications arising from its conflict with other parts of the Bill.
Listening to the speeches of the Opposition, I nurtured the suspicion that, not having succeeded with their frontal attack in Committee, they were now trying the soft sell approach and seeking to lure me into accepting the new clause. It may be that the hon. Member for Leominster was chosen deliberately to conclude the debate in his customary mellifluous tones, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who is always so reasonable about these matters, having opened it. They chose to hide such hon. Members as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who rained hammer blows on the Bill in Committee and on the traffic commissioners in particular. He was very muted in the course of this debate. It may be that he was being kept on a leash by the Opposition Front Bench. Having had that suspicion, I cast it aside in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who is hoping for a brief speech.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough is a reasonable and honest man. He agreed that the Conservative Party was divided on its views of traffic commissioners. He congratulated us that we had ironed out some of the complexities. He is a knowledgeable man. Being knowledgeable and reasonable about transport, he will surely agree with the reasonable proposition that, while I accept that from time to time the traffic commissioners have not allowed proposals to go forward which would have been more economic and made more sense, we must also agree that, overall, the traffic commissioners have preserved a bus system which, as it happens, is better than that of almost any comparable industrialised country. If one weighs the advantages and the disadvantages, one has to accept that we have retained the most developed bus system in the Western world and we have also 604 the traffic commissioners. The two are not unconnected. There are problems from time to time, but the traffic commissioners have helped to preserve a bus system. If we sweep that aside or give the county councils a carte blanche, which appears to have been the central viewpoint of the Conservative Party, there are enormous dangers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) said that he had no great confidence in the county councils. Many of my hon. Friends would agree with that. Though many county councils have been good, many have been bad and have taken anti-public transport stands. They have not preserved the systems and the interests of their local populations and have taken a ratepayer-oriented view to cut services at all costs without considering the needs of the area. Many county councils have taken a minimalist view and have considered simply the economics and, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne would agree, the free market solutions when they are inapposite. That is the first reason that we must preserve a role for the traffic commissioners.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough will concede, the traffic commissioners go wider than the county councils. We cannot simply confine consideration of a bus system to a particular county. Some of them are extremely small, particularly the Home Counties. There are many cross-boundary services. There has to be some method of dealing with that situation.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the traffic commissioners have a reputation for independence and fair mindedness. We throw that away at great risk to a sensible system. If the county councils are to be given more power, we have to consider all the three points which I have mentioned, which are, essentially, conceded by the more reasonable Members of the Conservative Party.

§ Mr. Fry
Will the Minister accept that the Association of District Councils is now happy with the kind of consultation that it will have with the county councils means that it wishes to have this proposal accepted? Does not that mean that most local authorities will want the plans that are to be prepared to go forward and that therefore they will want those 605 plans to have first consideration? No one is suggesting the sweeping away of the traffic commissioners. I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) would accept that the Association of District Councils should be interested in the new clause being put into the Bill.

§ Mr. Horam
The hon. Gentleman should not quote our successes against us. I do not think that the ADC is happy with the situation. It is willing to accept the sort of arrangement that we have come to, but there will still be disagreements between county councils and district councils. We have devised a formula which enables them to ventilate the disagreements, but it is going farther than the truth to say that the Association is happy.
I have given the general reasons for preserving the role of the traffic commissioners. The Opposition wish us to give "first consideration" to the plans of county councils. The term "first consideration" implies a form of weighting being given to the views of county councils, without saying what that weighting will be.
The hon Member for Wellingborough drew an analogy with the Children Act 1975, but the parliamentary draftsman of the Children Act, Mr. Bennion, has written in an article headed "'First Consideration': A Cautionary Tale": When, in drafting the Bill for the Children Act 1975, I was asked to use the phrase 'first consideration' I refused. He went on to explain why. He said: The Lord Chancellor circulated a memorandum which said 'Since "first consideration" is put forward in Parliament by those who do not favour paramountcy, it must be assumed that they are seeking to occupy an intermediate position … [but] … the word "first" adds nothing. [The intention is clearly] that the child's interest is to be weighted—but the question of weighted by how much is not answered. … Since the object … is to give guidance to those concerned with difficult questions of adoption, Parliament would be failing in its duty if it gave such guidance in a form which raised more questions than it settled. Parliament did fail in its duty. The Lord Chancellor's wise advice was brushed aside, and the Lords wrote "first consideration" into the Bill.' He concluded: People in Parliament need to think more deeply before forcing their language into Bills. 606 Victims of statutory obscurity should remember that it is not always the draftsman's fault". If we accept "first consideration", we are running all those risks. Not only are we not clarifying or simplifying but we are adding complexity and uncertainty. That is clear from the remarks made by Mr. Bennion in that article.
I am loath to say that this is a simple Bill. It is already a complex Bill and the addition of further complexity is something that the Opposition are always preaching against.
I think that we have got the balance right in the arrangements we have made between the county councils and the traffic commissioners. We have said, for the first time, that traffic commissioners must take into account the views of county councils, though not ignore the views of district councils, bus operators and trade unions. They must look at all those views on a par and not give undue weight to one set of views in judging the interests of the public.
The hon. Member for Leominster quoted the phrase in the Bill that says that the commissioners must look overall at the interests of the public, giving particular attention to various interests, plans and groups such as those I have mentioned, without giving any group paramountcy. That is an equitable and suitable arrangement.
I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. I know his concern about this problem because if I remember rightly in the last Session of Parliament he had a Private Members Bill on the subject of cross-boundary services between Leicester city and the surrounding countryside. This is a very real problem, not only in Leicester but in other parts of the country as well.
The right way forward in this case is for a proper agreement between the county council, the district council and the operator to sort out what may well be a messy and rigid situation in which people are paying different fares and there are routes on which buses cannot pick up.
This agreement process is happening up and down the country. A number of agreements have now been concluded in 607 Lancashire, and I pay tribute to the Lancashire County Council for doing this in a sensible and straightforward way. It has concluded agreements which have sorted out cross-boundary problems. I believe that the sort of arrangement in the Bill will facilitate agreements between the county, the district and the operator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said that he had no great confidence in the track record of the county council. Therefore, would he be happy with a situation in which the county council view had to be paramount? Would he be satisfied with the county council having "first consideration" even if the district council disagrees with what the county proposes—particularly if the district council has had a bus operation running for many years? If the district disagrees with what the county proposes for Leicester, for example, when Leicester is in the situation of having run buses for a long time, would my hon. Friend be happy that the county council's views prevailed, without any possibility of working out an agreement?
The fact is that the Opposition's new clause would work against the sort of agreement that would be in the interests of the people of Leicester.

§ Mr. Bradley
Of course I would not be happy with such a situation. But, as I pointed out before, the underlying assumption is that there will be agreement between the authorities after consultation. "Local authorities" is the term used in the Opposition's new clause—not one particular authority, but several local authorities. The underlying assumption is that there will be agreement. It would be a tragedy if that agreement were to be completely negatived by the traffic commissioners adopting historic attitudes.

§ Mr. Horam
The presumption of my hon. Friend's argument—and I entirely agree with him—is that there should be agreement. But what if there is not agreement? Then one must have a mediating body to sort out what should happen, and this is a role that the traffic commissioners can fulfil. If there is agreement there is no problem. The traffic commissioners are not likely to go against a solution agreed between the district councils and the county councils.
608 I urge my hon. Friend to consider this point very seriously because I believe that his interest would not be served by the new clause put forward by the Opposition since it would give "first consideration" to the views of the county council. The new clause would mean that there was less likelihood of an agreement, and that the sort of agreement achieved would not necessarily be in the interests of the district council.
For these reasons I feel that the balance in the Bill is right. We are making a move in the direction that the Opposition want—giving the county councils plans greater importance in the whole process of decision making. To put in the sort of words that they wish to add would simply bring about uncertainty when we want clarity and simplicity.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
Everyone who has listened to the debate will have found the reply of the Under-Secretary of State disappointing. That thinking will be shared on both sides of the House. The only argument that the hon. Gentleman adduced concerned the phrase "first consideration", which was used in the Children Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that it is an unsatisfactory phrase. I am bound to remind him that it was used by his own Government. Only two years ago his right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, argued when piloting the Children Bill through the House that the phrase was ideal and all-encompassing. If that is the limit of the hon. Gentleman's argument, his argument falls down.
There have been some interesting and good speeches made by my hon. Friends, but perhaps the most impressive speech was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). The hon. Gentleman made an interesting and reasonable criticism of the traffic commissioner system. The line of his criticism of the system was basically that which we have followed consistently over the past two or three years. The fact is that the system is out of date. It was based upon the 1928 Royal Commission on Transport. It was based upon the conditions obtaining in transport in the decade after the First World War. It was encompassed in the 1930 Act and it now suffers from a whole range of disadvantages.
609 The first and most obvious disadvantage is the delay that is built into the system. The second disadvantage is one of cost. That is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has raised time and time again. That has militated against the small provider. Thirdly, there is the basic argument of accountability. The Government must make up their minds. They are saying that they want local devolution and decisions going down to the county councils and local authorities. When we seek to help them to achieve that objective they say "Basically we cannot trust the county councils. We cannot trust the local authorities to take the right decisions."
The Government must come clean on their view of transport. We have proposed a reasonable addition to the Bill. We could have gone in two ways. We could have given the commissioners' powers to the county councils as we proposed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that that proposal was defeated. Therefore, we have taken

Division No. 216]	AYES	[10.29 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Farr, John	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Alison, Michael	Fell, Anthony	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Arnold, Tom	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Knight, Mrs Jill
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Knox, David
Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Lamont, Norman
Bell, Ronald	Fookes, Miss Janet	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)	Forman, Nigel	Latham, Michael (Melton)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Le Merchant, Spencer
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Fox, Marcus	McCrindle, Robert
Benyon, W.	Fry, Peter	MacGregor, John
Berry, Hon Anthony	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Biffen, John	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Biggs-Davison, John	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Body, Richard	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Marten, Neil
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Glyn, Dr Alan	Mates, Michael
Bradley, Tom	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Mather, Carol
Braine, Sir Bernard	Goodhart, Philip	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Brittan, Leon	Goodhew, Victor	Mayhew, Patrick
Brooke, Peter	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Buck, Antony	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Miscampbell, Norman
Budgen, Nick	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bulmer, Esmond	Grist, Ian	Moate, Roger
Burden, F. A.	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Montgomery, Fergus
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)		Moore, John (Croydon C)
Carlisle, Mark	Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morgan, Geraint
Channon, Paul	Hampson, Dr Keith	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hannam, John	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cope, John	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Costain, A. P.	Haselhurst, Alan	Mudd, David
Crouch, David	Havers, Sir Michael	Neave, Airey
Crowder, F. P.	Hayhoe, Barney	Nelson, Anthony
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Hicks, Robert	Newton, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Hodgson, Robin	Onslow, Cranley
Durant, Tony	Holland, Philip	Page, John (Harrow West)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Hooson, Emlyn	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Hordern, Peter	Page, Richard (Workington)
Elliott, Sir William	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pattie, Geoffrey
Emery, Peter	Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Percival, Ian
Eyre, Reginald	Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Fairgrieve, Russell	Kershaw, Anthony	Price, David (Eastleigh)

610

§ the alternative approach by placing upon the commissioners a responsibility to give first consideration to the local authorities.

§ We want to see new passenger services developing naturally, and the best judges of need are representatives of the local people. The county councillors know the local situation. They have the responsibility to co-ordinate local transport and they should be given the power to do so. We want to see new transport services develop. We want to see the reform of the traffic commissioner system.

§ Anyone who has listened to the debate will be deeply disappointed with the Under-Secretary's trivial reply. The hon. Gentleman has failed to take on board any of the major points that have been made over the past one and a half hours. I must insist that we take this issue to a Division. I urge the House to support the new clause.

§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 203.

Raison, Timothy	Shepherd, Colin	Trotter, Neville
Rathbone, Tim	Shersby, Michael	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Silvester, Fred	Viggers, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Sims, Roger	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Sinclair, Sir George	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Skeet, T. H. H.	Wall, Patrick
Rhodes James, R.	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)	Walters, Dennis
Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Speed, Keith	Weatherill, Bernard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)	Wells, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Sproat, Iain	Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Stainton, Keith	Wiggin, Jerry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Stanbrook, Ivor	Younger, Hon George
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Royle, Sir Anthony	Stokes, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Sainsbury, Tim	Stradling, Thomas, J.	Sir George Young and
Scott, Nicholas	Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. Jim Lester.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

NOES
Abse, Leo	Freud, Clement	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Allaun, Frank	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Ovenden, John
Anderson, Donald	Gilbert, Dr John	Palmer, Arthur
Archer, Peter	Golding, John	Pardoe, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Gould, Bryan	Park, George
Atkinson, Norman	Gourlay, Harry	Parker, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Parry, Robert
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Grocott, Bruce	Pavitt, Laurie
Bates, Alf	Hardy, Peter	Pendry, Tom
Bean, R. E.	Harper, Joseph	Penhaligon, David
Beith, A. J.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Price, William (Rugby)
Bidwell, Sydney	Heffer, Eric S.	Radice, Giles
Bishop, E. S.	Horam, John	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Huckfield, Les	Roderick, Caerwyn
Buchanan, Richard	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Hunter, Adam	Rooker, J. W.
Canavan, Dennis	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Roper, John
Cant, R. B.	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Rose, Paul B.
Carmichael, Neil	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Rowlands, Ted
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Janner, Greville	Sandelson, Neville
Clemitson, Ivor	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Sedgemore, Brian
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	John, Brynmor	Sever, John
Cohen, Stanley	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Coleman, Donald	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Corbett, Robin	Kaufman, Gerald	Silverman, Julius
Cowans, Harry	Kerr, Russell	Skinner, Dennis
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Snape, Peter
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)	Kinnock, Neil	Spearing, Nigel
Cronin, John	Lambie, David	Spriggs, Leslie
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Lamborn, Harry	Stallard, A. W.
Cryer, Bob	Lamond, James	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Davidson, Arthur	Lee, John	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Stoddart, David
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stott, Roger
Deakins, Eric	Loyden, Eddie	Strang, Gavin
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	McCartney, Hugh	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Dempsey, James	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Dewar, Donald	McElhone, Frank	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Doig, Peter	MacKenzie, Gregor	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Dormand, J. D.	Maclennan, Robert	Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Madden, Max	Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Magee, Bryan	Tinn, James
Dunnett, Jack	Mahon, Simon	Tomlinson, John
Edge, Geoff	Marks, Kenneth	Tuck, Raphael
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
English, Michael	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Ennals, David	Maynard, Miss Joan	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Meacher, Michael	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Evans, John (Newton)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Ward, Michael
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Watkins, David
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Mitchell, Austin	Wellbeloved, James
Flannery, Martin	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Welsh, Andrew
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Whitehead, Phillip
Ford, Ben	Noble, Mike	Whitlock, William
Forrester, John	Oakes, Gordon	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Freeson, Reginald	O'Halloran, Michael	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)