Businesses Liable to Vesting

Clause 34 – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 29th April 1970.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Hon. Anthony Berry Hon. Anthony Berry , Southgate 12:00 am, 29th April 1970

I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 49, line 10, leave out from ' thereto ' to end of line 17 and insert: 'with the exceptions of—

  1. (i) the loading or unloading of cargo which is carried out by the owners of the trading vessels or their subsidiaries;
  2. (ii) the loading or unloading of cargo which consists of one commodity and the process of unloading which is a specialised or unusual activity '.
This Amendment is an attempt to alter the Clause with a view to defining more sensibly the port businesses which will be liable to nationalisation under this part of the Bill.

At present, the businesses which are covered by the Bill include not only stevedoring companies, but warehousing and other assorted activities which go on in the ports. Many of these are of a specialised nature and are carried on by small businesses.

During the passage of the Bill we have had a great deal of argument about having one employer in the docks. If the argument means that only one employer should carry out all the various activities which go to make up the business of unloading and moving cargo, then it cannot be considered an impressive argument. I do not see any more reason to have one employer in the ports in- dustry than to have only one employer in, for example, the road haulage industry.

It is sometimes argued that only in the ports does one find more than one employer in the same factory. " Factory " is not a good word to use in this context. I prefer to compare a port with an industrial estate. The absurdities resulting from the port employer situation is very much the result of too much State interference. We need only look at some of the troubles near here, in the Port of London, to see examples. According to their traditions, the docks operate in different ways. A private employer will provide his quayside labour, while the Port of London Authority will have shipboard labour. Or the situation might be vice versa. This is certainly not the sort of situation in which good industrial relations can be brought about.

The principle that there should be one employer for one activity is right and I believe that if this had been the case in London much of the jealousy, bitterness and trouble, with which hon. Members will be familiar, between dockers employed by the P.L.A. and private stevedors would have been obviated. There would not have been such a fertile ground for agitation and industrial unrest.

However, the Bill seeks to extend the one employer principle very much further. We seek by the Amendment to restrict the port activities which the N.P.A. will be able to take over. Warehousing and storage are obviously the most important aspects mentioned in the Bill. Whatever our views about the Measure and our approach to the subject, we all hope to see the ports develop.

It is difficult to see how any effort to nationalise the warehousing activities of the ports will succeed because under the present pattern of industrial development warehouses are moving further from the ports. The disabilities which have been imposed on employers by the National Docks Labour Board and the development of containerisation—this. in turn, has led to container depots being established over a much wider area—suggest that these parts of the industry are not within the ports industry labour set-up as we know it.

The Government are approaching this matter from the wrong angle. They are galloping after vanishing warehouses. They are determined to defy technology, even though they have a Department concerned specifically with technology. They are trying to stop employers protecting themselves from interference. The Bristol Committee has figured largely in our discussion as, in commenting on the new technique of warehouses moving away from trouble areas—indeed, from areas of chaos in some cases—hon. Members have pointed out that ports are being enlarged to enable warehouses to be brought back into port areas again. This seems to be an extraordinary approach to the matter.

6.45 p.m.

I see no reason for the N.P.A. to own warehouses. If it does, we will have the old familiar story of the abandonment of competition and the absence of choice. Those who will suffer will he the port users. We will have the ridiculous situation of the authority, as a harbour body, trying to manage harbours which, in some cases, will be many miles from the ports.

Considering some of the other specialised activities in this industry, can what is proposed in the Bill really be considered the best way for an enormous nationalised industry to work Do even those who support the idea of nationalisation believe that this is the best way to solve our problems in the ports? There will be no competition, no spur to proper supervision, no real profit motive, many opportunities for inefficiency, the likeli- hood of poor service and many other, even worse, developments.

The Amendment would specifically exempt operations carried out by the owners of the trading vessels or their subsidiaries ". This would assist the Minister in working the Bill because it would save him the trouble of exempting firms which operate container berths and other advanced techniques. Tremendous technical changes are taking place in this great industry. At such a time, will the Bill help to solve our problems? After the months that I have spent studying the Bill, my conclusion is that it will not.

As the technique of through transport develops—a new development which we want to see continued—it is understandable that ship owners are anxious to control the whole process of transportation from beginning to end. This will not be possible under the Bill. This development of through transport control is even more essential with containerisation. If the Amendment were accepted the industry would benefit, remembering that some ship owners are willing to give business to other ship owners if they can unload at a faster rate. This happens today.

The second part of the Amendment deals with specialised commodities like grain. That is one example covered by these words. Probably the Minister has it in mind to leave them out, anyway. He is leaving out certain categories. Since that is to happen, it is right to lay down clearly which types of company should be exempt. That would save them from the bother of the appeals procedure. To use a phrase which we used many times in Committee, this would remove a great deal of uncertainty. Much uncertainty still exists in this industry. The Minister has accepted suggestions from us to remove uncertainty. I hope that he will agree that this Amendment would also do that.

Acceptance of the Amendment would save the Minister and the Authority, if and when it is set up, embarrassment and the complaint of intrusion. The Amendment would simplify matters, make things clearer, and isolate groups which should not be affected by the Bill.

Photo of Mr John Osborn Mr John Osborn , Sheffield, Hallam

This is a well-thought-out Amendment. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) said in moving it. We have debated how much the port boards should undertake and how best they should handle the work. We acknowledge that they should undertake the running of ports and harbours. The Clause, which relates to businesses liable to vesting, deals with port businesses and from line 7 onwards the harbour operations relevant under the term " port business " are listed.

Each port, particularly the larger ports, has a complexity of activities which it undertakes. I can speak only as an observer. I think there is no doubt that the port businesses have to adapt themselves to flexibility which is essential in many different circumstances. Ships do not come in regularly and certain products need handling in a special way. Port businesses provide the answer to special problems which arise at short notice.

I acknowledge that there are good and bad port businesses, but the concept of putting everything under a port board cannot be justified. Manchester Ship Canal Company has devised a way of handling everything as part of its activities, but in other areas goods have to be handled in a way which needs greater flexibility. We may look on these activities in the same way as the activities of a large company which is not in the public sector. It has to look at its costs and efficiency of handling. In my experience elsewhere representatives of a company sometimes say that they should carry out their own maintenance work or do their own painting. Each business has to decide for itself what is most economical in the circumstances.

It may be that in one phase of a company's development it is well advised to have its own maintenance crew. It may be that at other times a sub-contractor who specialises in the type of equipment concerned takes on that work. In private business expenses and costs have to be matched by sales. A private business invariably has the flexibility to take the best line of action. What will happen if in the early flush of success the port boards decide to take on too many activities which could well be left to businesses outside the activities of those harbours?

This Amendment should commend itself to the Government. Certain activities could be excluded from those to be vested in the port boards. The Clause says that the harbour operations relevant for this purpose are—

  1. (i) the loading or unloading of cargo in or from trading or fishing vessels which are in the harbour or the approaches thereto; "
The Amendment would exclude such activities as warehousing, sorting, weighing and movement. One of the difficulties which a future Government will face is that if too many of these port businesses are taken over into the complexity of monolithic management costs could escalate out of all proportion.

The cost of taking goods off ships and conveying them to the centre and to the consumer, and the cost of taking goods off for export could escalate. There would be no way of overcoming that difficulty. One of the main difficulties we shall have is that dockers have had one of the largest increases in wages of any section of the community. Provided that this is accompanied by flexibility there is no need for concern, but the costs of port handling and of running the port to a greater extent will include those activities which could well be done with efficiency outside the ports.

Not only should these sub-paragraphs be deleted, but we should insert the words in the Amendment. I very much hope that the Amendment will be carefully considered and replied to by the Government. It could well be that in the first flush of nationalisation port boards will take on a lot too much, with the result that everyone in the country will have to pay more for services which they may have taken for granted.

7.0 p.m.

Photo of Mr Peter Mahon Mr Peter Mahon , Preston South

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has conceded something about which his hon. Friends have been very dubious. It is that there could be a flush of success in the early stages of nationalisation of the ports. Coming from him, that is a concession. We anticipate that there will be a great flush of success not only in the early stages, but also in the later stages of development of the N.P.A. There is no doubt that this will happen.

Photo of Mr John Osborn Mr John Osborn , Sheffield, Hallam

In Standing Committee we have had to assume that this Bill may go on to the Statute Book. Some of us have tried to contemplate specific aspects of management of the ports when the Bill has become an Act. When I use the words " flush of success " my reference was to the Bill reaching the Statute Book rather than a forecast of its operation. I intervene to clarify my original remark.

Photo of Mr Peter Mahon Mr Peter Mahon , Preston South

It is the duty of the Government to cover the contingencies mentioned by the hon. Member. There will be difficulties and complexities. This is a serious undertaking. I do not concede that there will be great success in the early stages. It will be a long, hard road. Anyone who saw the task of a national authority in an industry such as this as anything but difficult would be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. However difficult the task, it is well worth while.

Hon. Members opposite fear difficulties which will not arise. For instance, they say that the owners of businesses are aggrieved. I do not accept that. Owners of businesses have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. Stevedoring authorities and the owners of smaller businesses ancillary to the dock industry have been reconciled to the nationalisation of the docks for a long time. What amazed them was that the proposal was so long delayed. They appreciated the breathing space they had, and they took advantage of it.

The prosperity of our dock industry has receded in recent years because the sword of Damocles was hanging over the heads of owners of small businesses and stevedoring authorities; so they did not put their all into the development of their businesses.

Photo of Dr Horace King Dr Horace King , Southampton, Itchen

Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his interesting remarks to the proposed exclusion of certain operations and of two kinds of cargo loading or unloading.

Photo of Mr Peter Mahon Mr Peter Mahon , Preston South

It is these ancillary trades which it is expected will be impeded, will not have the right of consultation, and will be disposed of without due regard to their usefulness. I appreciate, Sir, that I must direct my remarks to that aspect of the Amendment.

To what extent do hon. Members opposite wish to impede the authority in the incipient and later stages? Many of their fears, although they may be genuine, are largely unfounded. I believe that this development must be given a reasonable opportunity in both the incipient and the later stages. Hon. Members and those in the industry will then realise that this was the only course that the Government could legitimately and justifiably take.

Photo of Mr Keith Stainton Mr Keith Stainton , Sudbury and Woodbridge

The Amendment has two objectives. The first, by a process of deletion, is to remove certain powers. The second, by a process of exclusion, is to leave out certain powers.

It is sought to delete subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (iii). The Minister may argue that it is essential to retain (iii) for the discharge of (i). I suggest not and that the contents of (iii) and also (ii) are implicit in the drafting of the duties in terms of (i).

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in terms of excluding warehousing from this area, in terms of its shift as an industry structure pattern.

The exclusions sought by the Amendment have everything to commend them. The exclusion of the loading or unloading of cargo which is carried out by the owners' commends itself on two grounds. First, no owner will be foolish enough not to avail himself of the facilities provided by the authority if those facilities are more efficient and more thoroughgoing. Therefore, this can come into play only if the shipowner or his subsidiary can satisfy himself that he can mount a more efficient operation.

This is a matter of great concern, because the loading and unloading of vessels is becoming increasingly a coordinated operation. It is not a matter merely of loading. It is the totality of the maritime operation and not merely what happens on the quayside.

As to the second exclusion which is sought— the loading or unloading of cargo which consists of one commodity and the process of unloading which is a specialised or unusual activity "— the Minister cannot deny that he goes a substantial way to meet the point in Clause 35(2), but that does not give either him or the authority the flexibility which the subsection if amended as now proposed would confer.

Photo of Mr Albert Murray Mr Albert Murray , Gravesend

I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that the Opposition Amendments were well thought out. However, it is their intention that concerns the Government, not just the question whether they were well thought out.

The effect of the Amendment would be that only businesses concerned with the management of a cargo wharf or the loading and unloading of cargo vessels, by persons other than the owners of the vessels and their subsidiaries, would be subject to takeover. Moreover, even such loading and unloading would be excepted if it was concerned only with a single commodity involving some specialised or unusual activity in the unloading process.

The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) made special reference to warehousing. All the activities listed in the Clause as it stands are part of the business of running the common main user services. It would be impossible for the authority to become the principal provider of such services in accordance with the policy underlying Part II unless it had the powers of compulsory acquisition provided by the Clause as it stands. The rights of objection in Clause 35 will allow scope for considering particular cases.

It may well be that a warehouse in an N.P.A. harbour would be part of an integrated chain of warehouses, and there would in that case, be rights of objection. In other words, if the warehouse were part of a chain, some of them being inland, there would be the right of objection under Clause 35. There was also mention made of the shipping companies carrying out either themselves or through subsidiaries the loading and unloading of their own ships. Again, if there are objections to the activities of the N.P.A. there are the rights of objection under Clause 35.

A point was made about specialist or unusual commodities, but this is a very wide definition and it certainly would not be acceptable.

For the reasons which I have given, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Photo of Mr Michael Heseltine Mr Michael Heseltine , Tavistock

Probably the Parliamentary Secretary went to the nub of the argument when he questioned the intention of those of my hon. Friends who supported the Amendment. That is precisely where the argument ought to be. The purpose and intention of my hon. Friends who have argued this matter has been simply to take the problems of transportation as it is in the docks and show that for these problems we should try to build a framework which makes sense in transportation terms.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) spoke of the through-container problem, the transport revolution and so on, but the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to that at all. He has a plan which he is determined to impose. My hon. Friends, on the other hand, argue from an empirical standpoint on how the Amendment would fit in with what is happening in the transport world in this country and abroad.

I turn to the two exceptions which the Amendment would permit to remain outside the giant monopoly envisaged for the National Ports Authority. First, owners of trading vessels would be allowed to establish their own through-transport installations on the quay side or wherever it might be. All over the world one of the most successful forms of operating, as opposed to owning, a dock, is the leased berth system. It gives capital investment to the major stevedoring companies, it gives them stability, it encourages capital to flow into the docks and creates the right sort of employer-employee relationship and good management practices. This is what the best ports are doing, and this is one of the things which we should try to encourage in this country. It would not be possible to do it, if one wanted to involve the ship-owning community in this experiment as one would wish to do, if the N.P.A. were allowed to put itself between the ship and the movement of the freight when it came to inland depots and the customers.

It is therefore sensible to allow the through-transport concept which a shipowner might wish to advocate by claiming such an exemption. It would also immediately have the effect of imposing management discipline upon the through-transport concept. The ship-owner with the cargo which he is charged to carry is the one person one can be absolutely sure will be preoccupied with getting the cargo on and off the ship and to and from the customer as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This cannot be argued in favour of the National Ports Authority. It has a large number of other preoccupations. By removing this essential management discipline which the shipowner is ready to accept one removes one possible way to ensure that the docks in this country are operated at the maximum of efficiency.

Photo of Mr Albert Murray Mr Albert Murray , Gravesend

I have already made this point on the shipping lines that this would be covered in the rights of objection under Clause 35(3)(a).

Photo of Mr Michael Heseltine Mr Michael Heseltine , Tavistock

I accept that, but if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the argument, he ought to put the protection in in the way we argued it and not allow it to be the rights of objection in the way that he is arguing. That is essentially a negative argument. The chances of this Government, backed by the sort of momentum of doctrinaire nationalisation which lies behind the Bill, ever listening to the practical objections of the sort he asks for does not stand up as a safeguard.

If the Parliamentary Secretary listened to the debate yesterday—which I know he did—in the two hours ten minutes yesterday afternoon—he will understand that all the pressure from his party will restrict the exemptions drawing them more and more tightly together in order to make sure there is nobody outside the net. That is where the pressure will come, and this is the matter about which we are concerned.

The second argument is that there should be an exemption for the loading and unloading of specialised cargo. Anybody who builds up a specialist line of commerce is obviously taking a great deal of risk and will be investing a great deal of capital and will find himself with a considerable amount of money—

It being a quarter-past Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 214.

Division No. 113.]AYES[7.15 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)Currie, G. B. H.Iremonger, T. L.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)Dalkeith, Earl ofIrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Amery, Rt. Hn. JulianDavidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Astor, JohnDean, PaulJohnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &M'd'n)Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)Jopling, Michael
Awdry, DanielDrayson, G. B.Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)du Cann, Rt. Hn. EdwardKershaw, Anthony
Balniel, LordEden, sir JohnKing, Tom
Beamish, Col. Sir TuftonElliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)Kitson, Timothy
Bell, RonaldElliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &Fhm)Errington, Sir EricLane, David
Berry, Hn. AnthonyEyre, ReginaldLangford-Holt, Sir John
Biffen, JohnFisher, NigelLawier, Wallace
Biggs-Davison, JohnFletcher-Cooke, charlesLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Blaker, PeterFortescue, TimLloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &Stone)Lubbock, Eric
Body, RichardFry PeterMackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. JohnGilmour, Sir DouglasMcMaster, Stanley
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir EdwardGlover Sir DouglasMcNair-Wilson, Michael
Brinton, Sir TattonGlyn, Sir RichardMcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.Godber, Rt Hn. J. B.McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Bryan, PaulGoodhart, PhilipMaddan, Martin
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)Goodhew, VictorMaginnis, John E.
Bullus, Sir EricGower, RaymondMarples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Burden, F. A.Gurden, HaroldMaude, Angus
Campbelt, B. (Oldham, W.)Hall, John (Wycombe)Mawby, Ray
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &Nairn)Hall-Davis, A. G. F.Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Chataway, ChristopherHamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Chichestcr-Clark, R.Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Clark, HenryHarrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)Miscampbell, Norman
Cooke, RobertHastings, StephenMonro, Hector
Cooper-Key, Sir NeillHawkins, PaulMontgomery, Fergus
Cordle, JohnHeald, Rt. Hn. Sir LionelMore, Jasper
Corfield, F. V.Heseltine, MichaelMorgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)Hiley, JosephMurton, Oscar
Crouch, DavidHirst, GeoffreyNabarro, Sir Gerald
Crowder, F. P.Hogg, Rt. Hn. QuintinNicholls, Sir Harmar
Crowder, F. P.Holland, PhilipNoble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Onslow, CranleyScott, NicholasWaddington, David
Orr-Ewing, Sir IanSharples, RichardWainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Osborn, John (Hallam)Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)Walters, Dennis
Page, John (Harrow, W.)Silvester, FrederickWard, Christopher (Swindon)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)Ward, Dame Irene
Peel, JohnSmith, John (London & W'minster)Weatherill, Bernard
Pike, Miss MervynSpeed, KeithWiggin, Jerry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. EnochStainton, KeithWilliams, Donald (Dudley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)Stodart, AnthonyWilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Prior, J. M. L.Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Pym, FrancisSummers, Sir SpencerWolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.Tapsell, PeterWorsley, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. NicholasTaylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Carhcart)Younger, Hn. George
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)Temple, John M.
Royle, AnthonyTilney, JohnTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Russell, Sir RonaldTurton, Rt. Hn. R. H.Mr. Anthony Grant and
St. John-Stevas, NormanVaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnMr. Walter Clegg.
NOES
Abse, LeoFernyhough, E.McCuire, Michael
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)Finch, HaroldMcKay, Mrs. Margaret
Alldritt, WalterFletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric(lslington,E.)Maclennan, Robert
Allen, ScholefieldFletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Anderson, DonaldFoley, MauriceMacPherson, Malcolm
Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)Forrester, JohnMahon, Simon (Bootle)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)Fraser, John (Norwood)Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. AliceFreeson, ReginaldMallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Galpern, Sir MyerMapp, Charles
Barnes, MichaelGardner, TonyMarquand, David
Baxter, WilliamGarrett, W. E.Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Beaney, AlanGinsburg, DavidMaxwell, Robert
Bence, CyrilGolding, JohnMayhew, Christopher
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony WedgwoodGordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)Mendelson, John
Bidwell, SydneyGregory, ArnoldMikardo, Ian
Bishop, E. S.Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)Millan, Bruce
Blackburn, F.Griffiths, Will (Exchange)Miller, Dr. M. S.
Blenkinsop, ArthurHamilton, William (Fife, W.)Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Boston, TerenceHamling, WilliamMolloy, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. ArthurHarper, JosephMoonman, Eric
Boyden, JamesHazell, BertMorgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bradley, TomHeffer, Eric S.Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Brooks, EdwinHenig, StanleyMoyle, Roland
Broughton, Sir AlfredHobden, DennisMulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)Hooley, FrankMurray, Albert
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)Houghton, Rt. Hn. DouglasNeal, Harold
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)Newens, Stan
Buchan, NormanHoy, Rt. Hn. JamesOakes, Gordon
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Ogden, Eric
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)Hughes, Roy (Newport)O'Halloran, Michael
Cant, R. B.Hunter, AdamOrme, Stanley
Carmichael, NeilHynd, JohnOwen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Castle, Rt. Hn. BarbaraJackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)Padley, Walter
Chapman, DonaldJackson, Peter M. (High Peak)Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Coe, DenisJanner, Sir BarnettPalmer, Arthur
Coleman, DonaldJeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Concannon, J. D.Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. AnthonyJohnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)Pentland, Norman
Crossman, Rt. Hn. RichardJohnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Dalyell, TomJones, Dan (Burnley)Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)Judd, FrankPrice, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)Kelley, RichardPrice, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)Kenyon, CliffordProbert, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)Randall, Harry
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)Kerr, Russell (Feltham)Rankin, John
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir GeoffreyLawson, GeorgeRhodes, Geoffrey
Delargy, H. J.Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)Richard, Ivor
Dell, Rt. Hn. EdmundLee, John (Reading)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dewar DonaldLestor, Miss JoanRoberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Dobson, RayLewis, Ron (Carlisle)Robertson, John (Paisley)
Driberg, TomLomas, KennethRodgers, William (Stockton)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)Rose, Paul
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)Mabon, Dr. J. DicksonRoss, Rt. Hn. William
Eadlie, AlexMcBride, NeilRowlands, E.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)McCann, JohnSheldon, Robert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)MacColl, JamesShort, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton.N.E.)
Ellis, JohnMacDermot, NiallSillars, J.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)Macdonald, A. H.Slater, Joseph
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)McElhone, FrankSmall, William
Spriggs, LeslieVarley, Eric G.Williams, Clifford (Abertillery
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.Walker, Harold (Doncaster)Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. ShirleyWatkins, David (Consett)Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Swain, ThomasWatkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)Winnick, David
Symonds, J. B.Wellbeloved, JamesWoodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Taverne, DickWells, William (Walsall, N.)Woof, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. GeorgeWhitaker, Ben
Tinn, JamesWhitlock, WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Tuck, RaphaelWilkins, W. A.Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Urwin, T. W.Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)Mr. James Hamilton.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.