Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
I was stating that I submitted respectfully that the principle expressed in the new Clause offers the Government a great opportunity to supply a deficiency in their present economic policy. I would impress upon the Government that many of the schemes involving the payment of bonuses for greater production and productivity were concluded only after long and sometimes difficult negotiation between management and unions. It is my experience that, before their inception, a lot of them were regarded with a degree of mistrust by some of the parties concerned. I appreciate that the schemes and arrangements within the larger companies might survive an incomes squeeze of six months, but many of the schemes in the smaller companies might be imperilled. In some respects, these can be regarded as the shining lights of our industrial economy. Even today we have been reminded in a statement about the shipbuilding industry of the importance with which the Geddes Committee regarded an increase of productivity in the industry.
It is also in accordance, in the widest possible way, with overall Government policy. Not long ago at Question time, the Prime Minister stated that it was Government policy that earnings based on increases in productivity should become more widely accepted. I cannot remember the exact terms of his statement, but I believe that it was in answer to one of my hon. Friends.
Should we, at this stage, put these arrangements at risk without any commensurate benefit in terms of an earnings policy? I believe that these are too valuable to be put at risk. They are a necessary ingredient for our ultimate recovery. It may be that shorter-term problems will be assuaged or cured by the strictest application of a standstill, as enunciated in many of the Clauses of the Bill. However, in the long term, I feel that it would be damaging to the economy and the industry of our country if we were to take any step which would lessen the potential of agreements based on productivity. We should not put these at risk, and that is why I have tabled this new Clause.
I am sure that the House will agree that the essence of the criticism of stop-go as we knew it was that, for monetary reasons, the growth either of real output or of real income was restricted. That happened from time to time, and it was because of the legitimate and serious criticism of the whole broad range of economic policy that it came to be known as "stop-go".
We presume that it is the Government's intention that, wherever possible, even during the next six months, the static or, what is more likely, the slowly rising disposable net income of the community should be matched by rising real output, and that the matching should take place provided that it requires no additional strain on the balance of payments to permit that real output to rise. This is the only way to put value back into the pound. It is the most fitting response to the many sections of the community who for years have been taking value out of the pound. What we all now want to achieve is a set of economic circumstances in which value is put back into the pound in conjunction with a real rise in the net standard of living.
If there is a bright feature on the rather dismal economic horizon to which we have become so used in Britain recently it is the success of the Fawley type of productivity agreement. This example has been widely followed, with considerable justification, and if we are going to get out of our difficulties it should be more widely followed.
It may be that I am one of the few hon. Members who have succeeded in extracting from the Prime Minister that
wonderful word "Yes". The other day I asked him whether he would emphasise
that where increases in income are directly and demonstrably related to increases in productivity, it is in the national interest that both should take place
and the right hon. Gentleman's answer was quite unequivocal. It was "Yes". He went on to say:
We have always stressed the importance of pay and productivity agreements where one can be really satisfied that it is not just an aspiration about productivity but where there are clear guarantees that the additional income will be earned out of changes in productivity, particularly changes in manning.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1906.]
I submit that he has made an unequivocal statement by using the word "Yes". He has said that this is Government policy. Can we now take it that it is the Government's clear intention that where increases in income can be demonstrably and specifically related to increases in output and productivity even during the next six months those increases in income shall be paid?
The Clause is a very important one and is to be commended because it seeks to offer to productivity schemes what encouragement can be offered in the context of the Bill. There is a growing realisation of the importance of such schemes to our economic well-being, and also of the fact that these schemes are born after only a great deal of negotiation between unions and employers and that their execution is not suitable for a six months' freeze.
A six months' freeze is often likely to cause a set-back to the whole inception and working out of a productivity scheme. For example, the British Oxygen Company's productivity scheme, which has been the subject of a good deal of Press comment in recent weeks, took about 18 months to execute, and the possibility of a six months' freeze applying to such a scheme could lead to jeopardising its success. Earlier this afternoon the Attorney-General talked to
us in rather unnecessary terms about patriotism and the need to carry out this policy. We shall not get this policy accepted by appeals to patriotism. I am convinced of that not least because of an article which appeared in the Statist on 17th June, written by Mr. Tony Corfield, the Secretary of the Education and Political Department of the Transport and General Workers' Union, in which he said:
No less unrealistic is the supposition that workers will be especially responsive to what is held to be 'the national interest' over wages issues.
That is a fair comment, and I am not ashamed to commend it. Nor do I in any sense deprecate the fact that Mr. Corfield should have written in such terms, because the people on the shop floor want to get something out of extra productivity, and if the whole thing is to be put in suspension for six months we will not get the unions to accept the productivity deal and make the necessary sacrifice. There must be some tangible reward. Since we are all united in laying emphasis upon the value of productivity I hope that the Government will accept the Clause.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for having begun to speak when you called my hon. Friend. I have had difficulty in catching the eye of the Chair in the past, and have sometimes called for candles. On this occasion, however, perhaps I should have called for a deaf aid, because I did not hear my hon. Friend's name called.
I was a little puzzled by the new Clause, because my impression was that it would be quite in order for an employer to pay bonuses based on improvements in productivity although it would not be in order to pay bonuses by way of recognising merit, or anything of that kind. I was therefore interested more specifically in Amendment No. 38, which refers to
a wage increase reflecting an actual increase in output achieved under a productivity agreement …
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and other of my hon. Friends, in pointing out that what the country requires are agreements which encourage productivity. It is because we have failed to achieve the targets which have
been set for our industry that the Government have been forced to bring forward this ill-conceived Measure which is producing the freeze. It will not have the desired effect. I would have thought that anything that can be done to encourage the development of wage agreements based on real productivity should be done.
Amendment No. 38 offers one way of doing this and I hope that the Government will look upon our proposal favourably. I cannot see that anything but good can come from exempting from the voluntary or compulsory provisions of the Bill those agreements which are designed specifically to increase productivity and to reward those engaged in industry in return for that increased productivity. I hope that this argument will weigh with the Government.
I support Amendment No. 38. One, of the troubles affecting this country is the failure to achieve a sufficient increase in productivity. Amendment No. 38 provides that
a wage increase reflecting an actual increase in output achieved under a productivity agreement shall not be subject to such an order".
and the Government's own proposal in Clause 30 provides that
any person who has worked for the employer since before that date is to receive remuneration for the same kind of work for any period after that date which is at a higher rate than that at which he was being remunerated for work of that kind immediately before that date.
What we are saying here is that where there is an increase in productivity there should be a related wage increase for that specific purpose. The Amendment is desirable; it is in accordance with the Government's own provisions, and it is common sense. For those reasons I hope that it will be accepted.
This is a difficult issue, because my hon. Friends and I very much agree with the general sentiments which have been expressed and which were also expressed in Committee. We want to see the growth of productivity and we do not want to place needless obstacles in its way. As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said, it is essential to have rising productivity if we are to achieve a dynamic economy. Whatever problems we now face we all hope that within a reasonable period—when we have got over the immediate difficulties with which the Bill, among other things, is designed to deal—we shall be able to move forward again, because so much depends upon the growth of the economy. This has been said time and time again. When we were formulating the policy upon which the Bill is based, we made it clear that it was a policy for productivity, prices and incomes and that it would work in all three fields because they were very closely related.
In deciding to tighten the policy, we have still had in mind that we should not do anything needlessly which would impede the growth of productivity. The very fact that we have felt obliged to bring in the Bill is a measure of the extent to which, despite all our hopes, productivity has not risen fast enough. We all know, and it was said very clearly by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in Committee, that many so-called productivity agreements have not been productivity agreements at all. The language has simply been used to dress up something which was in other ways indefensible.
It is very interesting that at the present time we know of very few examples of productivity agreements which have been caught by the new policy. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), but it is a measure of the extent to which these agreements have not been reached often enough that we are not aware how many of them will be affected by the decisions we now feel obliged to take.
The point was made in Committee that the work of the National Board for Prices and Incomes is also directed towards the growth of productivity, and many of us consider that its success should be measured less by the immediate impact of its reports have on an individual price or incomes problem than by the effect they have on long-term productivity considerations. We see in the reports which have come from the Board that it has regarded this long-term problem as central to all its work on the references which have been made to it.
When we come to the consideration of the proper criteria for the second six months, after discussion with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., the question of productivity agreements should be borne very much in mind. It would be wrong to anticipate our decisions because consultations must take place first, but representations will no doubt be made to us and we shall no doubt be sympathetic to the view that if the second period of six months is to be flexible genuine agreements on productivity should be taken into account.
In the building industry there is an agreed productivity bonus. If so many bricks are laid a bonus is paid. Does the Bill now say that that must cease, or that as long as the target is the same it is in order to keep it going?
If I understand the question which the hon. Gentleman is putting, this is provided for by paragraph 18(ii) of the White Paper. But we are not discussing specific issues on this Clause but the much wider issue of productivity.
We all acknowledge that some so-called productivity agreements have been bogus. We acknowledge also that there should not be simply two parties to a productivity agreement, that it is not simply a matter of management and unions carving up the extra increment which is obtained in one way or another from the abandonment of practices which were obstacles to growth. The public interest must be considered. In the past, this has not always been acknowledged, and it has been assumed that the extra increment resulting from such an agreement should be divided between two parties and not between three.
I now come to the immediately relevant question of whether, in framing the policy and particularly in introducing the Bill, we should have made special provision for existing productivity agreements, which I understand is the point made by the hon. Member for Barry, or for productivity agreements which may be reached in the next six months or which would otherwise be caught by the standstill starting on the 20th July.
This was a very difficult issue and we spent a lot of time considering how rigid the policy should be. As is so often the case, it was a question of balance of advantages. If we tried to make some exceptions, would not this result in a breach of the dam? Would not many people argue that their agreements were eligible for consideration, whether or not we felt that they were genuine productivity agreements?
In the end we decided—I am sure quite rightly—that we had to maintain the standstill in every respect, except with regard to the very special exceptions which are spelt out in paragraph 18 of the White Paper, and particularly in paragraph 18(ii) which deals with specific cases where increases in pay result directly from increased output. We drew this very narrowly indeed, because we felt that if we did not do so agreements would slip through which would in the long run breach the policy.
Before he leaves that point, will the Minister say whether the policy includes those productivity agreements with personnel who are selling our exports overseas yet are paid by a British registered company, and who, if they are not paid a decent rate, will go to exporters from other countries?
I acknowledge, and we have done so throughout the discussions on the Bill, that problems arise and that there may be difficulties. I was rash enough at one stage to use the word "countervailing" and that got a response from the Opposition which I might have expected. We are prepared to admit that some consequences which flow from our actions may in a sense be counterproductive, taking the total economic problem with which we are dealing. But we are considering only the short period of six months and the flexible six months' period to follow and I am sure that we are right to say that we must be tough during that period. If we were not tough there would be more anomalies and greater injustice.
As the hon. Member for Oswestry said, productivity agreements take a long time to negotiate. I think that he mentioned a period of 18 months in connection with the productivity agreement with which he was particularly concerned. For this reason, there is no earthly reason why those who are thinking of negotiating productivity agreements or who are negotiating them at present should not go forward. This period can be used, as it has not been in other comparable circumstances in the past, as a breathing space in which both sides of industry can say, "We now recognise that genuine productivity agreements are in the interests of management, the unions and the country as a whole. Let us use this standstill so that at the end of the period we shall have far more than we have at the present time".
Therefore, whereas we insist upon the standstill, we feel that it can be used intelligently to the general good.
It was significant that when we discussed in Committee whether or not the word "productivity" was still included in the Government's policy the First Secretary said that it was, that the policy was the productivity, prices and incomes policy; but the word "productivity" does not appear in the title of any of the series of White Papers on this subject.
We have just had a typical reply from the Under-Secretary of State, who says, in effect, "This is a very difficult question, and we do not think that we can possibly face up to it." Nothing is more important in the whole of the policy than that the Government should take a constructive rather than a restrictive line. It was very much the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that nothing in the Bill is really constructive. For that reason, we on this side of the House believe that the Clause and Amendment which we are now considering are very important.
The productivity arrangements which have been built up in recent years have taken a long time to develop. Even now this is a fragile flower because, as the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) pointed out in Committee, unions do not like to give up the security which they have in restrictive trade practices which were built up in the 1920s and 1930s. Only if they can get the confidence
We on this side do not accept the Under-Secretary of State's view that it is impossible to distinguish between the genuine productivity agreement and one which is merely window-dressing. We agree that there is need to distinguish between them, but we think that it can be done. On that basis, we consider it most important that such agreements should not be deterred either by the provisions in Parts I, II and III or by the provisions in Part IV. If we do not incorporate Amendments of the kind we are now discussing, there will be grave danger that the whole climate in which this kind of improvement in industrial relations can ben made and brought up to date will be adversely affected.
|Division No. 162.]||AYES||[6.52 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bromley Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter||Crouch, David|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Crowder, F. P.|
|Batsford, Brian||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Cunningham, Sir Knox|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Currie, G. B. H.|
|Biffen, John||Bullus, Sir Eric||Dance, James|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Carlisle, Mark||Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Blaker, Peter||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Body, Richard||Clark, Henry||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Clegg, Walter||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Corfield, F. V.||Dodds-Parker, Douglas|
|Brewis, John||Costain, A. P.||Doughty, Charles|
|Eden, Sir John||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Pym, Francis|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Farr, John||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Fisher, Nigel||Kirk, Peter||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Kitson, Timothy||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fortescue, Tim||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Foster, Sir John||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Royle, Anthony|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan||Loveys, W. H.||Scott, Nicholas|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Lubbock, Erie||Sharples, Richard|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Glyn, Sir Richard||MacArthur, Ian||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Gower, Raymond||Mackenzie, Alasdair (Rose & Crom'ty)||Smith, John|
|Grant, Anthony||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Stodart, Anthony|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Maddan, Martin||Talbot, John E.|
|Gurden, Harold||Maginnis, John B.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Marten, Neil||Teeling, Sir William|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mathew, Robert||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maude, Angus||Tilney, John|
|Hawkins, Paul||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Heseltine, Michael||Miscampbell, Norman||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)||Wall, Patrick|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Murton, Oscar||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Webster, David|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Neave, Airey||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hordern, Peter||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Whitelaw, William|
|Hornby, Richard||Nott, John||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hunt, John||Osborne, Sir Cyrll (Louth)||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Pardoe, John||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Peel, John||Younger, Hn. George|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Percival, Ian|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Pink, R. Bonner||Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. Eyre.|
|Jopling, Michael||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Albu, Austen||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Gregory, Arnold|
|Alldritt, Walter||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Anderson, Donald||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Archer, Peter||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davies, Robert (Cambridge)||Hannan, William|
|Ashley, Jack||de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Harper, Joseph|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Delargy, Hugh||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Dewar, Donald||Hart, Mrs. Judith|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Haseldine, Norman|
|Barnes, Michael||Dickens, James||Hazell, Bert|
|Baxter, William||Dobson, Ray||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Doig, Peter||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Donnelly, Desmond||Horner, John|
|Binns, John||Dunnett, Jack||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Blackburn, F.||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)|
|Boardman, H.||Edelman, Maurice||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)|
|Booth, Albert||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Boston, Terence||Ellis, John||Hunter, Adam|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||English, Michael||Hynd, John|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert||Ennale, David||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)|
|Boyden, James||Ensor, David||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Faulds, Andrew||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Finch, Harold||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Brooks, Edwin||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Beiper)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)||Floud, Bernard||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Ford, Ben||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Forrester, John||Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Cant, R. B.||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)||Kelley, Richard|
|Carter-Jones, Lewie||Freeson, Reginald||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Coleman, Donald||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Garrett, W. E.||Lawson, George|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Garrow, Alex||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Ledger, Ron|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Gourlay, Harry||Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Oram, Albert E.||Slater, Joseph|
|Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Orbach, Maurice||Small, William|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Orme, Stanley||Snow, Julian|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Oswald, Thomas||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Loughlin, Charles||Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Luard, Evan||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Stonehouse, John|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Park, Trevor||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pavitt, Laurence||Symonds, J. B.|
|McBride, Nell||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Taverne, Dick|
|McCann, John||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|MacColl, James||Pentland, Norman||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Thornton, Ernest|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Tinn, James|
|Mackie, John||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Tomney, Frank|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Urwin, T. W.|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Probert, Arthur||Varley, Eric G.|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)||Randall, Harry||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Manuel, Archie||Redhead, Edward||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Mapp, Charles||Rees, Merlyn||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Marquand, David||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Weitzman, David|
|Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Richard, Ivor||Whitaker, Ben|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)||Whitlock, William|
|Mellish, Robert||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Millan, Bruce||Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Molloy, William||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Ryan, John||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Sheldon, Robert||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Morris, John (Aberavon)||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Moyle, Roland||Shore, Peter (Stepney)||Woof, Robert|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Newens, Stan||Silkin, John (Deptford)||Yates, Victor|
|Norwood, Christopher||Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Oakes, Gordon||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Ogden, Eric||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Mr. Bishop and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.|
|O'Malley, Brian||Skeffington, Arthur|