HC Deb 13 July 1981 vol 8 cc835-44
Mr. Robert Sheldon

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 22 leave out 'or molybdenum' and insert 'molybdenum or any other metal'.

Clause 9 refers to the particular minerals that can be extracted from the deep sea bed as manganese,—nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus or molybdenum". The amendment seeks to add other metals to that list. It may be possible to do so by order as other metals of value are discovered in the process, but we should have the ability to permit the Secretary of State to add to the list of metals others which may subsequently be discovered.

Inherent in that is the way in which the cost of the mining process varies. I tabled an amendment to explore that matter, but it was not selected. However, there is an important aspect here, because the cost of the mining process may vary during the course of time. The cost of the mining process is fixed at 20 per cent. before transport, processing and marketing are added. Some say that that figure is wrong. The marine research project at Manchester university, described by the Daily Mail on 4 July as among the world authorities in sea bed mining, felt that the figure should be 25 per cent. We need flexibility to show that we are channelling into the fund the correct proportion of revenues.

6.15 pm
Mr. MacGregor

Throughout our discussions on the Bill we have maintained consistency in reference to the elements contained within nodules. The definition of "hard mineral resources" in clause 1(6) makes it clear that the Bill is primarily concerned with the potentially valuable elements in nodules that it would be commercially attractive to exploit. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will know that in any case the exploitation will not begin until 1988, so we are talking about a period that is a considerable time away; and if the convention comes into force we are likely to be talking about a very short period during which the levy would apply. It is appropriate that the levy should be similarly confined to the elements that are likely to be produced in practice.

It is true that there are other elements in the nodules. I understand that there are 25 or more, but they are either present in such small quantities that they are not commercially exploitable—for example, silver, which represents only a minute proportion of the weight of a nodule—or are so low in value—for example, iron—that the cost of extraction would be disproportionately high. To require calculations of levy on each and every possible metal in nodules would complicate the arrangements unnecessarily. In practical terms, the amendment would be meaningless, as any elements other than those listed are present in nodules in such small traces that they are not commercially exploitable. Under subsection (3) they would be defined as being outside the scope of the levy, because they represent such small percentages of nodules.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

I understand that other elements may be present in small proportions and that the cost of extracting them is not worth while, but the processes may alter and, as they alter, by-products may automatically be thrown out and be available at no extra cost. That happens regularly in the chemical industry. I thought that the Minister might wish to deal with that matter.

Mr. MacGregor

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a temporary provisions Bill. The levy arrangements will start operating much later in the lifetime of the legislation. It is intended that the levy provisions that will apply under the convention will replace any need for these arrangements. That is likely to be in the period about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking, if other elements ever become commercially exploitable. The American Act imposes a levy on the four major elements only, presumably for the reasons that I have advanced.

I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

Will the Minister deal with the cost of the mining process, which he says is 20 per cent. and which others think may be as high as 25 per cent.? There are no arrangements to deal with the matter if the figure should be wrong.

Mr. MacGregor

In the interest of progress, I simply point out that in Committee we debated at length the size of the levy. At this stage it is important to have arrangements for the levy similar to those in the American and German legislation. It is a slightly complicated matter, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are very much in line with the other two countries. If and when a convention comes into force the levy arrangements will be different, but at that stage the whole process will be different and the mining companies will have more protection for their operations in any case.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.20 pm
Dr. John Cunningham

The Bill has proved interesting for a number of reasons, not least that it has gone through the new procedure of the House which enabled the Committee to take evidence, albeit briefly. That enabled the Committee to move quickly to the major issues involved. People are in the habit of referring to the Bill as a small measure. It is not small in the far-reaching nature of what it seeks to achieve. It is also not small in size, in that it has 18 clauses and a schedule.

Britain is committed within the United Nations to treating the deep oceans as the common heritage of mankind. A few may conclude—there may be more than a few—that if the Western industrial nations proceed as they are intent on proceeding, that phrase will ring a little hollow. The Bill is called the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill. There is nothing temporary about some of its provisions—for example, the issue of licences that will last for up to 20 years. We all know from our experience in the House that successive Administrations have introduced legislation which they say is of a temporary nature, pending some other more fundamental reorganisation—only to find that that legislation persists unchanged year after year.

There are a number of reasons why the Opposition have been extremely cautious about the measure. The British interest lies wholly with an international agreement in the United Nations discussions and the creation of an international regime. The many issues involved—defence, navigation, exclusive economic zones and so on—are as important as, if not more important, than the mining of deep sea nodules. It would be wrong to jeopardise the long list—I read them into the debate on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them now—for what may be envisaged as a relatively small commercial gain.

The Government view is that the Bill is an interim measure and that nothing will be jeopardised. We are not convinced that that is so. We regret the introduction of the Bill and the way that we and other industrial nations are proceeding. The Group of 77 countries are less likely to reach accommodations with us in the face of the hard-driving commercial interests of the West, pressing ahead in the way that it is doing. One of the amendments accepted by the Government provides the ability to moderate and curtail the activities of mining companies and consortia. We welcome that, but we do not think it sufficient to convince the Group of 77 countries that we are intent upon ensuring that when an agreement is reached there will be something left for them to share. That goes to the heart of what is proposed in the issuing of licences under the legislation.

A major difference between the two sides of the House is whether what is being enacted will hinder progress towards the proposed international regime. We think that, on balance, it will jeopardise the chances of success. That is why we have always been opposed to the introduction of the Bill.

We have some objections of detail. We discussed some this afternoon and many more in Committee. We feel that the Government should not have proceeded with the measure. We hope that even now we may be proved wrong. It is fair to say that as we are hoping for an international agreement it is sensible to hope that our worst fears are not well-founded. We are not convinced by the arguments that have been advanced on that score. Therefore, we shall again record our opposition to the Bill and our unease about the timing and the nature of the proposals by voting against Third Reading tonight.

6.25 pm
Mr. Skeet

This is a time for short speeches. It has been an agreeable series of debates. They have been contributed to by the Opposition, who have been helpful both in Committee and otherwise. But for the Bill there would be no possibility of anything being done. Therefore, it is an extremely useful measure. I hope that the applications for licences will be available by early 1982, in which case the regulations will have to be made under clause 12. I hope that the Minister will say when the regulations will be published so that they can he investigated.

This is the beginning of the road, but much more has to be done. Together with the Ministers who are negotiating the convention, I hope that a conclusion will be reached—if not this year, early next year—and that it will be suitable for deep sea mining operations that will be beneficial to mankind and to those who will exploit the minerals. It is essential to have a preparatory commission to establish the regulations and the proceedings of the International Sea Bed Authority. There should be a preparatory investment protection, which is crucial to the viability of capital that has already been spent. The 13i11 represents the first stage in a whole series of proceedings.

I congratulate the Government on making Britain the third country to bring forward such legislation. I hope that other countries will follow suit. Under the early provisions of the legislation close contact will be maintained so that many of the difficulties that we foresaw in Committee will be ironed out to the satisfaction of all.

6.27 pm
Mr. Robert Shelton

I wish to comment on the evidence—taking sessions in Committee and their value not only to Committee members but to others who take an interest in these matters. I came late to the Bill, for reasons that the House knows, and I benefited from reading the evidence-taking sittings as well as the Committee debates.

I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) for his assiduity throughout the Bill. As he said, the oceans are common to all nations. They are for all to use and to participate in. Any exploitation should be for the benefit of all. The developing countries will see the measure as a new form of Western colonialism. Dislike that as we may, there is no question that we cannot exploit two-thirds of the world's surface without reminding those countries that that is a copy of what was done with their mineral resources on land. To obtain nickel and cobalt is a small matter in comparison with the grievous effects that the Bill will have on the attitudes of so many countries.

The Bill is called a temporary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven was right to question how temporary is temporary. In the absence of agreement—and it will be difficult to reach agreement, as it always has been and always will be—the Bill could remain on the statute book for a long time. There are some basic flaws in it. The first and most important is that it should be an incentive to international agreement. It is clearly not that. It removes any urgency to reach agreement and, in certain circumstances, might make an agreement unattractive because certain people will have vested interests in the status quo because they have discovered their deposits. I do not understand the reason for urgency in introducing this measure.

The second flaw is that the levy will be based not on the actual outcome but on a theoretical assessment long in advance of any extraction of these minerals. The levy is based on a ratio of the cost of the mining process to the final cost of the minerals. It is said that it will be 1 to 5.

I do not see how the Government can conceivably say, in advance of all the technological changes that will inevitable take place, that that ratio will be fixed once and for all. They should at least have provided that it could have been varied by order. However, they are hooked on this ratio of 20 per cent., which is a fundamental flaw.

Two minor flaws relate to the amendments that were discussed earlier. One relates to safety, and the other to trade unions. Such amendments would have improved the Bill.

The most important consideration is why the Bill has come forward at this stage. What would have been the results had we waited a year or two years? International agreement would have been pursued by all the other countries. It is sad that the great risks that we are taking as a result of the Bill will be wholly out of proportion to the modest benefits that we shall achieve.

It is a shame that the Minister, for whom I have considerable affection for tasks that he has performed in the past, should bring this Bill forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven is quite right—we shall be voting against it.

6.31 pm
Mr. Hooley

If there is one common ground between both sides it is the importance of the United Nations conference on the law of the sea. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the successful conclusion of that conference and the signing of the treaty would be in the interests of the United Kindom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has already said, it covers a wide range of matters that are of basic interest to the United Kindom as a great maritime nation.

However, sea bed mining is not one of the United Kingdom's dominant interests. It involves very few jobs in the United Kingdom. I have heard no evidence at all—and I have read the evidence given to the Committee—that over the next two decades or more there is likely to be any shortage of the metals that are likely to be recovered from the sea bed. Cobalt is the only possible exception, but that could not be recovered without recovering all the other metals for which at present there are no markets.

The issue of sea bed mining has become one of the touchstones of good faith between the Third world and the Western countries. This was made clear in the evidence given to the Committee by Dr. Lowe, who quoted a statement by the Group of 77 which is worth repeating. He said: Inasmuch as the unilateral laws are intended to confront the international community with a fait accompli, they are in breach of the principle of good faith in the conduct of negotiations, contrary to the procedure of concensus contained in a gentlemen's agreement, and seriously jeopardise the progress achieved so far in the conference, being prejudicial to the prospects of the early adoption of a comprehensive convention."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981; c. 86.] That is a clear and emphatic statement on behalf of 130 countries, and I am astonished that the Government should seek to fly in the face of that kind of considered judgment by bringing in a Bill of this nature.

This legislation is for the benefit of multinational companies. It is not for the benefit of the United Kingdom. It flies in the face of the general principle that underlines the law of the sea negotiations. Even at this late stage, we are entitled to ask whether this will benefit the multinationals.

The matter was put quite wittily in Committee when it was asked: Do you expect the writ of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice to operate in the mid-Pacific?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 121.] The short answer to that must be "No". The matter was put more cogently by Mr. Roderick Ogley, of the University of Sussex, about whether the Bill will help the countries that it purports to help. He said: Either it purports to exclude nationals of all other states from each area licensed, in which case it infringes on their 'freedom of the seas'; or it does not, in which case it offers the licensee no assurance that he will enjoy the right to exploit the site awarded him. In principle this difficulty can be lessened, but by no means eliminated, if several states enact similar legislation and recognise each other's claims; any state outside this system would be perfectly entitled to dispute such claims" .—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 148.] He went on to say that, by contrast, an internationally recognised regime would give the assurance necessary to the companies to operate safely and lawfully on the high seas.

Another matter arises. What happens if the Third world countries, or some group of them, feeling justifiably aggrieved, take the matter to the International Court of Justice? That is feasible, and it was also raised in Committee. Dr. Lowe said: In the most recent Group of 77 statement of legal position, of which I have a copy, it specifically raises the possibility of taking action before the International Court of Justice, in terms either of an advisory opinion or of contentious litigation against one or more of the reciprocating States. We in this country have as good a record as anyone of complying with international obligations and I should be surprised if, in the face of pending litigation before the International Court, we breezed ahead and proceeded to implement and act under legislation of this kind."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981; c. 88.] What are the consequences of that? Let us suppose that the matter is taken to the International Court. That could impose a delay of several years before any judgment was given, as a result of which no advantage whatever would have been gained by passing this legislation in such a hurry. It would have been much wiser had the Government pressed ahead with achieving an agreement in the United Nations conference on the law of the sea rather than jeopardising that agreement by proceeding with this kind of legislation and ganging up with the West Germans and the Americans.

The most unfortunate aspect of this business has been what were until recently the secret discussions and agreements between the eight so-called "like-minded States"—a group of Western industrial countries which decided to come to their own private agreement on deep sea mining and are now proceeding to put it into effect by individual legislation. It was first done by the Americans, followed by the Germans and now ourselves. Presumably, the French and Italians will do so in due course.

The Government's record vis-a-vis the Third world has not been brilliant during the past two years. There was our disruptive attitude in the global negotiations. There have been the cuts in overseas aid and action on overseas students' fees. We now have this legislation, designed to confer on British-based and other multinationals a special privileged position in relation to the enormous mineral resources on the sea bed. I cannot believe that that attitude, compounded by the Bill, will in any way enhance the standing and good name of the United Kingdom in the rest of the world.

6.38 pm
Mr. MacGregor

I agree with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) that it has been interesting to participate in the new Special Standing Committee procedure. It enabled us to give the Bill an extremely detailed examination and full consideration, which in turn enables me to be comparatively brief.

As I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear, the Bill is an interim measure to bridge the inevitable gap before an agreed law of the sea convention may enter into force. It is a measure designed to provide a framework that will enable United Kingdom companies to continue their development work during this period of uncertainty.

The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked why the Bill had been introduced at this stage and whether there was a degree of urgency. As he knows, two other countries have passed their own legislation, which will enable the interim operations, the continuing research and development work and possibly some of the commercial exploitation work to take place under their licences unless we take steps, through our own licences, to give British mining companies the opportunity.

The evidence given to us by the mining companies during the special procedure sittings showed that British interests are at stake and that advantages are to be gained for Britain from giving them the opportunity to operate under United Kingdom licensing legislation. That is the reason for introducing the Bill at this time. I must stress to the House that that does not diminish our commitment to the idea of an international convention. It springs from our belief that international regulations provide the desirable framework for the industry over the longer term.

We heard the companies express their views in the Special Standing Committee. They stated clearly that they regard an acceptable international regime as the best basis for the commercial development of the deep sea mining industry. The Government remain determined to achieve a satisfactory outcome to UNCLOS. The Bill seeks to encourage United Kingdom companies that are already active in this new industry to continue with their development work.

Bearing in mind some of the remarks that have been made by Labour Members about multinational companies, it is worth saying that under the Bill there will be no sudden bonanza. Principally, we can expect continued dogged research work to tackle many major technological problems that remain on the road to commercial development of the deep sea bed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was right to say that this is only the beginning of the road.

The Bill includes all the necessary provisions and conditions to deal with commercial production. The provisions and conditions are necessary, as we do not know at this stage precisely how long the Bill will have to remain on the statute book or how fast the industry will develop. No commercial operations can start before 1988. We hope that by that time an acceptable international law of the sea regime will be in force, or will be about to enter into force, for the United Kingdom.

By encouraging companies to continue their exploration and development work the Bill will benefit all those who wish to see the international regime get off to a prompt start once all the details have been agreed. It will help to ensure that there is a deep sea mining industry in existence when the international framework comes into operation. It will contribute towards the speedy establishment of an international mining operation by encouraging the development of technology that may he transferred under the terms of the convention. If there is commercial production under the Bill it will contribute funds to the international authority when it is set up The Bill should therefore be seen as a positive measure in bringing the international community closer to the shared goal of fair exploitation of sea bed mineral resources

Reference has been made to the attitudes of the developing countries to this form of national legislation. It has been suggested that we are threatening the the future progress of the law of the sea conference by enacting the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in what I thought was a gross exaggeration, said that the very fact that we were likely to give the Bill a Third Reading was imperilling the treaty. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said on Second Reading, there is no evidence that the passage of the American and German deep sea mining laws have soured negotiations.

The evidence that we have from, for example, agreements reached within the conference about the topics that should be discussed demonstrates a much more positive attitude among the developing countries. They have agreed that the treatment to be accorded to the preparatory investments made before the convention enters into force should be included on the agenda for the tenth session. Although negotiations have been delayed the Group of 77 have indicated that they would be willing to discuss the matter once the attitude of the United States had been clarified. There is no reason stemming from this measure why we should not continue to work together with our friends in the international community to secure acceptable arrangements for deep sea mining both in the immediate and interim future and in the longer term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has been most helpful during our deliberations. We have all benefited from his experience. In the autumn we hope to start the process of making regulations to help the companies in preparing their applications. We hope that it will be possible to receive applications in January 1982, although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, there will inevitably be some delays before the issue of licences takes place.

I say to the hon. Member for Whitehaven that on occasions in Committee I thought that we were taking part in a duet. I am grateful for the constructive and reasonable way in which he and his hon. Friends participated in our proceedings in Committee, especially in the new proceedings. It is because of that approach and the reasonable arguments that they have advanced that I have been able to introduce two amendments that embrace their arguments in Committee. I recognise that the Opposition have misgivings about parts of the Bill.

I trust that the Bill will prove a useful basis for developments during the interim, pending internationally agreed regulations. I hope that the House will now agree to its being given a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divide: Ayes 175, Noes 109.

Division No. 263] [6.45 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard Hunt, David (Wirral)
Alton, David Hurd, Hon Douglas
Atkins, Robert(Preston N) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Beith, A. J. Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Bendall, Vivian Kimball, Sir Marcus
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) King, Rt Hon Tom
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Kitson, Sir Timothy
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Knight, Mrs Jill
Berry, Hon Anthony Lamont, Norman
Best, Keith Latham, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Blackburn, John Lee, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Le Marchant, Spencer
Braine, Sir Bernard Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Brinton, Tim Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Brooke, Hon Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Luce, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John Lyell, Nicholas
Bryan, Sir Paul Macfarlane, Neil
Budgen, Nick MacGregor, John
Butcher, John McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Cadbury, Jocelyn Madel, David
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Major, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Marlow, Tony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n ) Mates, Michael
Chapman, Sydney Mather, Carol
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Clegg, Sir Walter Mellor, David
Cockeram, Eric Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Colvin, Michael Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Cope, John Moate, Roger
Corrie, John Monro, Hector
Costain, Sir Albert Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Cranborne, Viscount Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Crouch, David Murphy, Christopher
Dean, Paul (North Somerset) Myles, David
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Neale, Gerrard
Dykes, Hugh Neubert, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Newton, Tony
Eggar, Tim Normanton, Tom
Fairgrieve, Russell Onslow, Cranley
Farr, John Osborn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Page, John (Harrow, West)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Forman, Nigel Parris, Matthew
Freud, Clement Pattie, Geoffrey
Garel-Jones, Tristan Pawsey, James
Glyn, Dr Alan Percival, Sir Ian
Goodlad, Alastair Pollock, Alexander
Gow, Ian Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Gray, Hamish Proctor, K. Harvey
Greenway, Harry Rathbone, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Rhodes James, Robert
Grist, Ian Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Gummer, John Selwyn Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Hamilton, Hon A. Rossi, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Rost, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hannam, John Sandelson, Neville
Haselhurst, Alan Scott, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Heddle, John Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Henderson, Barry Shepherd, Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Skeet, T. H. H.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Speed, Keith
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Speller, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd) Spence, John
Howells, Geraint Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wainwright, R.(colne v)
Sproat, Iain Waldegrave, Hon William
Stainton, Keith Wall, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor Ward, John
Steel, Rt Hon David Warren, Kenneth
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Watson, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) Wells, Bowen
Stradling Thomas, J. Wheeler, John
Tebbit, Norman Wickenden, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) Wolfson, Mark
Thornton, Malcolm Young, Sir George (Acton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) Tellers for the Ayes:
Trippier, David Donald Thompson and
Viggers, Peter Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Waddington, David
NOES
Allaun, Frank John, Brynmor
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Johnson, James (Hull West)
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Kerr, Russell
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Lamond, James
Bray, Dr Jeremy Leighton, Ronald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Buchan, Norman Litherland, Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) McCartney, Hugh
Campbell, Ian McElhone, Frank
Campbell-Savours, Dale McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Coleman, Donald Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Cowans, Harry Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Craigen, J. M. O'Neill, Martin
Crowther, J. S. Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cryer, Bob Palmer, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Park, George
Dalyell, Tam Pavitt, Laurie
Deakins, Eric Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Prescott, John
Dixon, Donald Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Dormand, Jack Richardson, Jo
Douglas, Dick Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dubs, Alfred Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Dunn, James A. Robertson, George
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Rooker, J. W.
Eadie, Alex Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Eastham, Ken Sever, John
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) Sheerman, Barry
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
English, Michael Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Skinner, Dennis
Ewing, Harry Snape, Peter
Faulds, Andrew Spearing, Nigel
Fitch, Alan Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Stoddart, David
Foster, Derek Stott, Roger
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Strang, Gavin
George, Bruce Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Golding, John Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Graham, Ted Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Grant, John (Islington C) Welsh, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) White, Frank R.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) Whitehead, Phillip
Hardy, Peter Whitlock, William
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Haynes, Frank Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Winnick, David
Home Robertson, John Woolmer, Kenneth
Homewood, William
Hooley, Frank Tellers for the Noes:
Howell, Rt Hon D. Mr. George Morton and
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Mr. James Tinn.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Question accordongly agreed to.

Bill read Third time and passed, with amendments.

Back to