I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I imagine that every Minister feels a sense of relief—this is my first experience —when this stage of a Bill is reached, especially if it be a controversial and complicated Measure, as no one will deny this is, and if, as in this case, one has spent nearly 100 hours in Committee. I know that it was by no means the longest Committee stage, but I think that we made history in that, under the timetable rule, we were able to finish at each stage ahead of the timetable.
I think that it will be universally agreed that, as a result of our deliberations in Committee and on Report, we have a better Bill. The Bill which I introduced to the House was a better Measure than the White Paper, and we shall now be able to send a yet better Bill to the other place. I thank all those who have been responsible for and have contributed to the improvement of the Bill.
All hon. Members who were members of the Committee will wish me to make special reference to and pay tribute to our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris)—
—whose wisdom and patience accounted for the agreeable atmosphere which we had, for the most part, in the Committee. I thank all members of the Committee for their conscientious attendance. Naturally, I pay particular thanks to my hon. Friends. We never lacked a quorum, neither did we lose a Division, and we should all like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) who was our Whip. It is right also to pay a tribute to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), for their co-operative and constructive approach, even though the outcome was so often an agreement not to agree but disagree.
Having regard to the length and complexity of our proceedings, it is right also to pay a special word of thanks and tribute to the Parliamentary Counsel, to the Clerks of the Committee, and to the servants of the House, to whom, I fear, we sometimes caused inconvenience because we chose to sit rather long into the evening. For my part, I express my thanks for the tremendous support I had from all the officials in my Ministry in what has been, as everyone will agree, a difficult and complicated Measure.
It would not he right for me to try to deal with all the contents of the Bill in this short debate. Everyone concerned with the port industry recognises the need for change. I would not deny the contributions which have been made by many dedicated people in the industry or the significant improvements in the last six years or so, but these improvements have not done enough and cannot be enough while the industry is shackled with an out-of-date structure. Tinkering with it is not enough. A new structure is needed, and the Bill is designed to provide an efficent new structure. Given the drive and enthusiasm of those in the industry, I am convinced that this restructuring will bring about a radical improvement.
I have sought throughout to preserve what is best in the present structure, namely, the scope for local enterprise. The ports will be run not by the N.P.A., but by port boards responsible to the authority. There will thus be clear lines of management responsibility within the industry and each port board will have substantial independence within the central planning framework laid down by the authority.
The authority will be required to show the separate financial results of each port in the statement of accounts to be included in the annual report. These will show the success of each port board in achieving its financial management objectives and will nail the charges which have been made about cross-subsidisation between boards taking place and being concealed. There have been repeated fears that, for instance, charges on the oil companies at Milford Haven would he increased to subsidise other ports. Anything of this kind would run completely counter to the philosophy underlying the Bill, and the N.P.A. accounts will provide sufficient information to show that it is not happening.
In the provision of port services, a new structure is equally necessary. For too long, the industry has suffered because there have been too many employer interests. Steps have been taken since decasualisation to improve the position, but much more needs to be done, and we are providing for the Ports Authority to become the principal provider of port services.
I have introduced Amendments on Report to help with the situation in the newspaper, fishing and dredging industries. We have an objection procedure for port businesses not specifically exempted, under which each case can be considered individually. If a business is excepted under the objection procedure, there is provision for the authority to agree that it will not use its powers to apply again for a vesting order within a certain period. In this and other cases in Part II, there has been useful improvements.
Among the most important provisions is the proposal for actively involving workers in the management of the ports industry. I said on Second Reading that the Bill marked a further step forward, in particular through the specific requirement that one of the aims of the machinery for negotiation and consultation under Clause 41 is to be the furtherance of the participation by persons employed by the N.P.A. in the processes leading to the taking of management decisions.
Thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friends on the Committee, the Bill now contains further advances—in particular, the provision for workers in the industry to be appointed to port boards and for the consultation under Clause 41 to be extended to cover measures to assist the communications between workers and their representatives.
Both these are significant, but I would stress what I have said many times before —indeed, earlier this evening—that, in the Bill, we can only provide a framework. It is up to those in the industry to take the necessary practical steps. In making these proposals, and I am confident that they will do so, I should like to repeat in the industrial relations context, the assurances that I have given on many occasions that this Bill does nothing whatever to disturb the existing structure of the Dock Labour Scheme. Not a single docker in the scheme on the register, whether or not he is in a port affected by the authority, will lose any of his rights under the Dock Labour Scheme. Nothing the Bill does changes that scheme in any respect.
Fears which have been expressed in some quarters have arisen from genuine misunderstandings. I hope that what I have said may assist in making the situation clear to those concerned, and I would be grateful if hon. Members would do what they could to make absolutely clear what the Bill is about.
In conclusion, this Bill is designed to put the ports industry into the right shape to face the 1970's. Its proposals are sensible and effective. I have seen no real alternative suggested. From the earliest days in discussion I have said, as have my predecessors, the onus is upon those who do not like what we are doing to say what they would do. I still want to know what the alternatives would be.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless I should like to say that it would have been agreeable if we could have heard it.
We are a trading nation and the vast majority of our overseas trade passes through our ports. It is essential that we have an efficient service through our ports and I believe that the Bill will make a contribution in enabling them to face up to the challenge of the future.
May I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, some because they were on the Committee, some because they were not. Brief speeches will help.
The House may be interested to know that the Cup Final is still a draw. In many ways that is a remarkably applicable verdict on this Bill. We all know that the future of the National Ports Authority and therefore of this Bill will not be decided by our vote tonight but by the people of this country at the next election.
For the first time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put forward an argument that convinces me to withdraw something I have said.
I should like to join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris) for his extremely talented chairing of our Committee. We have now served under him on transport matters on two successive occasions, and I am not sure that he deserves our congratulations so much as our commiserations. He carried out the job with great speed and we all admire him.
I also wish to thank all those who have recorded and served our processes. They have done so with extreme skill, and I exonerate them for any responsibility for the contents of this Bill which they have done so much to make possible. Certainly, they have served us well and we are extremely grateful. I would particularly mention the HANSARD reporters, not because they served us over and above the efforts of others, but because by oversight we omitted to mention them at the conclusion of the Committee proceedings. I wish to remedy that omission.
I would also like to thank the Minister. I agree with him that this is now a better Bill than the White Paper. It was a very bad White Paper and it is only a bad Bill. On a personal note, may I say that if one had to have a nasty Bill one could not have had a nicer Minister to introduce it to the House.
The Minister has been extremely helpful to me and I am grateful. I would also like to thank all my colleagues, who have worked for such a long time under such intolerable pressures at certain times from within and without the House, for all the efforts that they have made. They will understand if I single out only two of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—who I believe would say that it is a black day for something if not for democracy that this Bill should reach the Statute Book—and my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for the immense burden that they have had to bear and which I was only too happy to pass on to them. As all hon. Members know, it is always a problem in opposition to match the immense skill and resources of the Government and my hon. Friends have made a notable contribution.
All of us were sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) left us at the beginning of Committee stage. I hope that he will shortly be back with us and I know that the Minister has written to tell him of our view.
The only omission, on a personal note, in the Minister's speech was a reference to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). Without him this would never have been and it would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to him for the immense amount of personal effort which he and his friends have put into this. They have worked with such dedicated zeal at something which no one wanted and for which there was no case, except in the minds of a small section of the Labour Party and the militant trade unions. It was their personal determination to bring about a reorganisation of this sort which led to this Bill. It requires an enormous amount of political skill and an almost blind zeal to carry on against the facts and over such a long period of time.
I have a deep personal respect for the hon. Gentleman and I admire his tenacity. He would not expect me to admire his judgment or his personal views, but his tenacity is exemplary and I hope that in my opposition to all that he stands for others will be able to say that I was at least his equal at the end of the day.
It will be no surprise to anyone to hear that I deeply deplore this Bill. All of us on this side of the House are totally convinced that it is unnecessary, out of context and without justification. It is our view that following the Rochdale Report and the Devlin Inquiry, which followed that, there was a clear framework and indication of the lines upon which the port industry should run. That was the view expressed from these benches when the Labour Party was in opposition and the 1964 Harbours Act was introduced. It was the choice of the hon. Member for Poplar, and the Government later under pressure, to turn the ports of this country into a political shuttlecock.
They were the people who introduced the element of uncertainty into the port industry, and while I understand the feelings of those who say that as it has now become a shuttlecock the problem had better be resolved finally on the side of those who turned it into a shuttlecock, they would not expect me to accept so doubtful an argument. Therefore, the view is still deeply held on this side of the House that there are overwhelming arguments for the continuance in the port industry of locally responsible ports, that they should be within a competitive environment and that the private sector has a valuable part to play within the correct framework.
It is on these assumptions that the framework should have been designed and the future built. I have made it clear that we on this side of the House will use every opportunity within our constitutional powers in this Parliament or the next to oppose the Bill and will do all that we can to prevent the vesting either of Part I or even Part II. This in itself would save the taxpayer £76 million, even if we do not allow for the additional calculations that would follow the acceptance of the Bristow implications.
I have also made it clear in this House and outside that in the event of Part I vesting taking place it will still be our intention to re-create a competitive environment within the ports, and I have already spelled out our policy in respect of Manchester, Bristol and Milford Haven. Let no one believe for a moment that such a policy would rest on a negative approach. I shall not trespass on your generosity, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me briefly to respond to the words of the Minister in saying that he had heard of no alternative. I appreciate that this is not the moment for me to spell out in detail any alternative that we want to see. But within the framework I have outlined there is opportunity not for a negative but for a totally positive approach.
There is no doubt that it is in many ways a management problem that we face and that, by the introduction of correct management and the granting to that management of powers to control the ports for which they have responsibility, it would be possible to build upon the genuine advances which all parties have made in our ports over the last ten years. We believe that that is what should have happened. Within that framework, there is no doubt that the private sector could have played, given an opportunity, and will therefore play, given the opportunity, a part in the continued development and strength of our ports.
The through-transport concept about which we have heard so much is the dominating influence in the transport revolution in the country and will continue to be so. Therefore there is a real dilemma which we must all face and which I suspect many of us have already understood. It is whether that transport system is to be dominated by State institutions spreading their activities or by private institutions which will fill the gaps left by the State institutions which are then pushed back. That is the dilemma. If one accepts the concept of a through-transport system, it is fair to state that it implies common ownership of facilities that are demanded and the services in them. In these circumstances, someone must decide which political doctrine is to dominate the system. Here is the great divide. I have no doubt that, in this Bill and in transport Bills yet to come, this will be the main issue.
Let there be no doubt about where the Opposition stand in the matter. There is an issue of principle at stake and it would be wrong for hon. Members opposite to believe that this issue will be allowed to go by default or that the Opposition are simply prepared to accept the status quo in a sort of interregnum until the election of some subsequent Labour Government or whatever it may be in the near future.
The third aspect is that of labour relations. I had the opportunity to speak earlier about this and I will not take the time of the House at length now to cover the ground again. I have no doubt that labour relations in this country are influenced by matters more or less within the environment of good management, good wages and good conditions. That is what the men want and it is their legitimate entitlement, and that is what we should seek to provide, whether within the institutional framework of the Bill or whether in other ways. I do not believe that, within the vague phraseology of the Bill, that cause is served in any way. It could be misused or well used, and the motives that will make it misused or well used are precisely those which will make it possible for exactly these things to happen with or without the Bill.
It is a delusion to believe that we here can legislate to improve labour relations. It would be wrong if we should see that as a prime function of legislation within the context of the Bill. It is the legitimate prerogative of managers and men and it should be our responsibility, or rather the Minister's, to choose managers who understand this. If we get the right managers, we will not need the legislative framework created here. If we get the wrong managers, the legislative framework created here will be more of a hindrance than a help.
I believe that the electoral time-table makes it almost inevitable that the Bill will not come into effective practice before the General Election, so that it will be a matter upon which a wider audience will have a chance to vote. I have no doubt which way it will vote, although that is a controversial view and one which no one would expect me to share with hon. Members opposite. On that basis how much more sensible it would be to prevent this prolongation of the discussion and to kill the Bill tonight in the way in which it will be surely killed by a later audience.
It would be churlish of me not to begin by warmly thanking the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), which I do, for his more than kindly references to me. I propose to select suitable extracts from those observations and print them verbatim in my election address.
I might just secure re-election at the next General Election in the constituency which I have the honour to represent even without the commendations of the hon. Gentleman, but I should think that the combination of his commendations and what he said to the dockers—that if they want the Bill they had better vote Labour —will secure that whichever hon. Friend of his opposes me at the election will undoubtedly be poorer by the sum of £150.
I sincerely return the compliment to the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. We had some hard tussles in Committee, but I have seldom seen a better example of silk purses being made out of sows' ears and a presentable case being made out of very thin material than the hon. Member for Tavistock put forward in Committee. I have seldom seen an hon. Member who did so much homework as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor); and the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who shared the chores of the Opposition Front Bench, is such a nice guy that it does not matter what he says—we all love him.
On this black day for the hon. Member for Cathcart I extend a welcome to the Bill. It is no secret that it is not precisely as I would like it to be drawn, and that I can think of further improvements in addition to those which have been made, but it is important that we should have the Bill, that we should have the vesting day, and that the Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. The industry needs radical change on four grounds.
First, we must have central planning of the huge capital investment that will go into the industry. If decision-making on capital investment is dispersed throughout the industry there is much less chance of every million pounds of capital investment in the industry producing the best value in increased productivity and increased competitiveness.
Secondly, we need the Bill to set up a powerful central research organisation for the industry. There are few industries in this country whose techniques are changing so rapidly. Containerisation and palletisation which people get excited about today will be " old hat " in 10 years' time. The LASH system will create a great revolution and will be the central core of what the hon. Member for Tavistock referred to as the through transport concept. Within the lifetime of most hon. Members we shall see huge developments in amphibious transport, and much greater use of our inland waterways for taking goods out of the ports.
This demands considerable research and the development of an organisation and methods department, which I do not see being done on a dispersed basis, port by port. It might be said that for both those things, the planning of capital development and the development of research and O and M, the National Ports Council might have done the job. But I think that those tasks are too great to be laid upon any body, however competent and distinguished its members, whose powers are purely advisory. There must be an executive body to do them.
Thirdly, the outstanding characteristics of the industry, the outstanding respect in which it lags behind almost every other industry in the country in management technique, is that it is the only one I know in which management does not have the power to match load to capacity. The central job of anyone in a manufacturing industry is to decide what he wants to make, how many bods and machines of different sorts he will want to produce it, and then to make sure that capacity is available to match that load. This is not done in the port industry as it is now constituted, because the people with the capacity do not handle the load.
In the Port of London, the P.L.A. knows what the load will be up to a point. It knows what ships are coming in, and when, because it must provide berths for them. What it does not know is what is in the ship that has to be unloaded. That is known only to someone in a dusty, third-floor office in Threadneedle Street who does not do anything about providing the capacity. So the knowledge of the load and provision of the capacity are separate from each other. Anyone who tried to run a factory on that basis would be " round the bend " in five minutes. The Bill puts the provision of capacity and the assessment of the load in the hands of the same authority, as it is in every other industry in the country, and as it never has been in the ports industry.
Fourthly, I come to the point on which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) dwelt, about industrial relations. I agree with him 100 per cent. that what matters is the men and not the machinery, the willingness, the spirit and not the letter, the competence to understand the problem. But whilst I agree with his analysis, I differ from his conclusion on two grounds. First, I think that he is wrong totally to dismiss the concept that an institutional framework makes some contribution. I entirely agree with him that an institutional framework without the right men and right spirit will be valueless, but, given them, the institutional framework helps them to do the things they would anyway want to do better than would otherwise be the case.
My other reservation is that one of the things that has embittered labour relations in the port transport industry is the workers' resentment about the labour-only contractor, about the people who have made a lot of money out of the industry sometimes without supplying one penny-worth of capital equipment. They do not own a crane, they do not own a shed, they do not own a forklift truck. In one case that I know, they did not even own a telephone.
The telephone number on their letterhead was that of a public call box in the docks. But they made a lot of money by battening on to the capital facilities provided by public authorities out of public money, out of the wharves, the cranes, the forklift trucks, and even the lavatory. They made a lot of money. People in the docks resent this, and the great contribution which the Bill will make towards the improvement of industrial relations is that it will help get rid of those resentments.
It is on those grounds that I commend the Bill to the House, with all its defects.
Let me at once declare a personal interest in the Port of Charlestown, which is a china clay port in the West Country. I begin by saying that there is very little in my remarks of a political nature. However, I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) present, because I seem to remember that it was he who said on Second Reading that he had a great objection to private enterprise when it is enterprising.
The situation in the West Country is roughly on the following basis. There are three ports in the Cornish area—Fowey, Par and Charlestown, the latter being about twice the area of this House. We in the West Country do not find the National Dock Labour Board of much assistance to us. I have received a letter dated 7th April, which reads:
The National Board has been instructed to obtain from all port authorities whose installations fall within the regulation of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme, 1967, a definition of the area of the port as laid down by or under any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Provisional Order or any Instrument made under any enactment passed or made with reference of that port. Consequently, I am required to obtain from your company the definition of the port of Charlestown and also to ask if you would give this matter your urgent attention and make as early a reply as possible.
Have hon. Members ever heard such drivel—
The dock labour situation must come within the ambit of the Bill, in this sense. If I am asked what my reply was, hon. Members may be interested to hear that I suggested to Mr. Trembath, who signs the letter and who travels every day from Fowey to Falmouth, that he should look at the Port of Charlestown and see what it is.
In the West Country, we do not require these arrangements for our dockers. The predominant feature in the West Country is —
On a point of order. Last night, the hon. and learned Gentleman made an eloquent speech in favour of keeping out of the Bill that which he now wishes to discuss. He even voted on it.
I would only suggest that there are consequential Amendments in relation to the Harbours Act which touch on what I am saying. I will try to keep in order. I am asking the House quite seriously to consider exempting the West Country ports from the Dock Labour Scheme—
On a point of order. It may seem churlish after I have made a rather long speech to interfere with the rights of the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, it cannot be within the ambit of the Third Reading of the Ports Bill to suggest that we should exempt the West Country from the provisions of a scheme which is run under a different Act. The only reference to the Dock Labour Scheme in the Bill comes in Clause 51, which empowers the Minister to consolidate any amendments that he makes to the scheme. However, the existing scheme is not dealt with in the Bill.
I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the hon. Member for Poplar.
The china clay ports in the West Country at present employ 123 registered dockers. The E.C.L.P. employs 11,000 people in the china clay industry. It exports 2 million tons a year. Its exports, which are running through these ports —we are discussing the Ports Bill—are second to our coal exports. The E.C.L.P. is one of the largest china clay companies in the world and is earning £20 million a year in foreign currency for this country.
On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would speak for about 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) dealt with this point in Committee, when we established that, as the port concerned was not covered by the Bill, the National Dock Labour Board does not come into it. I know that the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred is exerting all the pressure that it can to get itself outside the scope of the National Dock Labour Board and to have its own employees. But it has nothing to do with the Bill.
For those of us who have been concerned with the Bill it is aggravating, because what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—I do not want to stop him speaking—is not germane in any way.
I will keep to the Bill. I am endeavouring to do so. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) said that I promised to speak for only 10 minutes. If interventions take up five to seven minutes, I can hardly be blamed on that account.
I have made my protest. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I have said what I meant to say. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will do me the kindness of considering what I have said.
This is an historic Bill and today is a great step forward for our docks, and particularly for the workers in the industry.
The Bill will bring under public ownership the Ports of Liverpool, Garston and Birkenhead. The workers there have long waited for this day and have long demanded that there should be public ownership of those ports. They will be highly delighted, as I am, that the House of Commons has now reached Third Reading of the Bill.
We should pay tribute to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I thank the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) for his tribute to my hon. Friend. I believe that behind the Bill lies the great work put in by my hon. Friend, in addition to the Minister's. But the framework, as it were, was laid down in the Labour Party's report. After all, the Labour Party, as a party, begins the processes of Bills which ultimately come to the House in the way that the Central Office of the Conservative Party begins the work to bring in Bills. Some of the people responsible for this report were trade union leaders in the industry itself, which is something which needs to be emphasised.
I should have liked the Bill to have been more positive in certain directions, hut, when we realise that it brings 90 per cent. of the trade through the ports, and 95 per cent. of the registered workers, into a nationalised industry, we have to appreciate that this is a very important step forward indeed.
I particularly welcome an Amendment which we did not have an opportunity to discuss this evening, but which is in the Bill. I am referring to Amendment No. 115 to Schedule I, which gives workers in the ports the opportunity and the right to have their representatives on the port board. This is a tremendous advance. It is a real step forward towards participation by port workers in the running of their industry.
I am delighted that by this Amendment we have arranged
for one or more persons to be appointed by the Authority as members of the board from among workers in the ports industry, by such method or methods of selection and in such number as the Minister may, after such consultation, determine ".
It allows for the election of these people provided that this is agreed to by those consulted, and this is another great step forward.
I am sure that it will be recognised by everyone that decasualisation and all the things that we have done during the last 10 years, and the great advances that have been made, can reach fruition only by bringing the industry under public ownership. This will make it more efficient, give the workers better conditions, and, in the long run, make a great contribution to the economic well-being of the country.
Compliments are flying across the Chamber. I agreatly appreciate what the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about me. If I were to put on my election address what he said, I might have to pay £150 as well. It might not be understood, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about me, and for the courtesy which he and the Parliamentary Secretary showed throughout our proceedings. I thank him, too, for the small Amendments which he accepted, but I regret that he did not accept the big ones. I think that we all appreciate the Minister's being present almost throughout our proceedings despite his other duties.
Having said that, I must tell the House that I have not been able to change my opinion about the Bill. I still think that the taking away from the ratepayers of Bristol of their great port deserves the title of the " Great Ports Robbery ". The Port of Milford Haven should be left as it is, and so should the Manchester Ship Canal Company. The shareholders of that company are being robbed of their rightful possessions because of the way in which their shares are being taken over. The value of their shares over the last year does not matter. It does not matter whether they were 25s. or 35s. The 9,000 shareholders who have less than £160 worth of shares are not bothered about day-to-day prices. Shares are being taken from them forcibly, and they ought to receive proper value for them.
The system which the Minister is using is downright robbery, just as it is for him to answer letters by saying that he is concerned about the taxpayer. It is a bit late for any Minister of this Government to pretend that he is behaving like Robin Hood. He is not fitted for that task, any more than the Parliamentary Secretary is fitted for the part of Friar Tuck. These shares are being stolen at a disgraceful price.
It was wrong to include the ports businesses in the Bill. I tried to argue earlier, without much success, that they should have been left out. Also, Clause 29, which leaves the other 300 harbours in a state of complete uncertainty, despite all our efforts, is a disgraceful part of the Bill.
Although it has been slightly improved, this is still a bad Bill. It will disrupt this great industry at a very important time, with the development of containerisation, and so on. As my hon. Friend said, we have the great divide. The battle is not yet over. However, we can still send our good wishes to all who work in this great industry and wish that they did not have to undergo the great setback which must inevitably follow this terrible Measure.
It is a good thing that, on Third Reading, the issues before the House should have been so clearly defined, especially by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who has made it clear that this has been a battle between private interests and our views on this side of what is best in the national interest—[HON. MEMBERS: " No."] This was clearly expressed by the hon. Member for Southgate, who mentioned the Manchester Ship Canal Company, a private interest. I welcome this distinction and the definition of where the two sides stand.
The Minister said that nothing in the Bill changes the Dock Labour Scheme. I was not on the Committee. I imagine that this refers principally to the dockers themselves, but does it also apply to the Dock Labour Board? In other words, will it continue? If not, will it ultimately he absorbed within the National Ports Authority?
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said that his party deeply deplored the Bill. But this does not appear to be the view of the major interests— the shipping interests themselves as well as the dockers. After all, they are the people who use the ports and who load and unload the ships.
It has been said that the Bill removes competition. But the competition should not be among our home ports—it should be between this country and the Continent. That is why I welcome the Bill —because it envisages rapid development of the ports in the vital sphere of cargo handling, which in turn means that there must he tremendous investment, neglected for many years, in berthing and handling facilities.
Therefore, I believe that the Bill is right. It provides for planned development under one national authority which can assess the national needs and not lust those of stevedores or other private individuals. I am sure that it is one of the greatest steps forward in the transport industry. I wish it every possible success. Perhaps I might be allowed also to express my personal thanks to the Minister and all who have helped him to bring the Bill before the House.
I usually begin by saying that I will be brief. On this occasion I actually will be, and there is time for me to make only some broad generalisations.
I regret that I cannot engage in the amiable pleasantries in which hon. Members have indulged, no doubt because most of them were members of the Committee which considered the Bill. I was not such a member. Nor was any other of my hon. Friends of the Liberal Party. However, I wish to convey my thanks to hon. Members who have worked hard and long to improve the Measure.
I wish, at the outset, to associate myself strongly with some of the remarks of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), both of whom are, I know, passionately concerned with the wellbeing of those who work in the ports.
I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Poplar said about future prospects. He used some wise words to describe the sorts of development that might take place. I therefore rather regret that I shall find myself in a different Lobby from those hon. Gentlemen opposite when the vote on the Third Reading is taken.
Although I say that I shall be in a different Lobby, I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there are only two Lobbies. It follows, therefore, that hon. Members who represent the Liberal Party frequently find themselves in a Lobby with hon. Members with whom we do not wholly agree, There is no third Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: " Abstain."] We must, on this issue, make our position crystal clear. We shall be voting on the real issue of the Bill; namely, on our attitude towards nationalisation. This is a nationalising Bill and we are opposed to nationalisation. It is possible to suggest another course, such as a partnership between public and private ownership, like B.P. or Dutch Airlines, but that would be out of order.
I am usually right on such matters and I am glad of your confirmation, Mr. Speaker.
Although we are opposed to nationalisation, that does not mean that we would not support some nationalisation. We often do. We are not often in favour of things being brought into public ownership, though there might be a case for certain ports being taken into State ownership. However, we would require a great deal more discussion of such an issue, particularly about the kind of public ownership that was envisaged.
We do not like the Bill primarily because, in this case, it is laid down that the criterion must be tonnage. Rather than the 5 million tons criterion that is applied by the Bill, there might be a reason for taking a smaller port into public ownership. Private industry can often run a large organisation better than a small one. Thus we cannot accept the basic theme of the Bill, which lays down a division based purely on tonnage.
In the last resort, therefore, this will be a vote about nationalisation. Although, as I say, we are not wholly opposed to the nationalisation of the ports and other things, we cannot support a general nationalising Measure such as this.
I have a personal reason for opposing the Bill in that I am particularly concerned about the plight of the Manchester Ship Canal Company under these provisions. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am concerned for the rights of those who work in the ports and who depend on them and use them, including shareholders and those who invest in the ports.
I regret that it has not been possible in these debates, which have gone on for a long time, to remove the real anxieties which are felt by many people about the future prospects of the Manchester Ship Canal Company; and I refer not only to the shareholders but to the workers and those who live near to and take pride in port areas. This is a personal reason why I am glad to find myself opposing hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Make no mistake, whatever our views may be on other matters, we are opposed to this form of nationalisation and we shall demonstrate our opposition to the Bill.
I wish to be associated with all the remarks made about hon. Members who served on the Committee and with the words of praise of the Minister. I also refer to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and the hon. member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) who I have come to like as individuals while deploring their politics.
I welcome this Bill for the good it will do my constituents. There have been no fewer than four Members of Parliament
from that great city speaking in the debates tonight. It was unfortunate that on this auspicious occasion we did not hear from the Conservative hon. Member who represents a Bristol constituency. I am pleased to give support to the Bill and to the very real additions we have made to it. I thank the Minister because the ordinary workers, the dockers, will be able to participate, because of the Amendment we included and in making decisions and agreements about an efficient port.
In the ports, trouble is caused by the proliferation of employers who efficency is not all of the same standard.
If we are to have fewer employers in the ports, as, in this column's view, we must, then there must be some form of public accountability. The ports are too important, too vital to the nation's survival, to be left entirely to the vagaries of a few entrepreneurs.
In any case, as we have emphasised, most of them are publicly owned already.
The Conservative Party may wish to dismantle the whole structure of public ownership which has been built up in this country since the war. If so, no doubt they will make out their case for this on the hustings. But it had better be a good case.
And so far as the ports are concerned, we submit, they have no semblance of a case at all.
Those words appeared in Lloyd's List on Wednesday, 11th February. They are good words and I subscribe to them. We have seen doctrinaire opposition to this Bill. We shall carry it tonight and it will be in the nation's interest that we so so.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor:
Irrespective of what is said in Lloyd's List, irrespective of what has been said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), nothing can hide the fact that this is a shameful, doctrinaire Bill which is totally irrelevant to any of the real problems facing the ports of this nation.
The only case which has been put for the Bill was that put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, in his unique way with the grand faith he has, said that public ownership will make the ports more efficient, create better organisation and better labour relations. I wonder if he or any other hon. Member could give us some evidence of where that has happened. Did he find that following the nationalisation of steel that industry became more efficient?
I was simply trying to point out that so far as I am aware there has been no occasion on which this argument was proved. Even if it were proved, we should remember that the ports industry is not just any other industry. The ports of this country are unique. This is not a question of a facility for which there can be real competition with any other facility. It is not like gas which has competition from electricity or the railways which are in competition with air transport. The ports are virtually a unique monopoly in the import of goods to this country. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are agreed that the ports have big problems, but one thing that the Minister must prove if he is looking for support of the Bill is that by simply changing the ownership of the ports we shall deal in any way with these problems or improve them.
We object to this Bill on several grounds. First, we deplore that the centralisation which the Bill will inevitably bring will mean the destruction of local control of some major ports. In Bristol traders do not share the views of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West. It is a fine, very efficient, forward-looking port which is being destroyed and brought under central control. In Manchester we have a situation where a profitable, free enterprise port is being expropriated by the Government in the full sense of the term and taken under central control. This will not promote efficiency in any way.
We also object to the Bill because it is inflexible in laying down a rigid 5 million tons level which brings in the Port of Milford Haven which should have no place under the National Ports Authority. Most important, we oppose the Bill because it is yet a further extension of State control and Socialism. In these Clauses there are more powers for manufacturing, for trading, for selling, and for repairing by a State-controlled authority. In view of the enormous inroads which have been made into free enterprise by State control, the time must come when we say, " No more ". I suggest that this is where we should say it.
Apart from the extension of State control and nationalisation, inevitably one of the great objections to the Bill is that it will bring about cross-subsidisation, in which the profitable and efficient ports—the Manchesters of this world—will find that all the money they make from their efficiency and from the local resources will go into one large pool to finance the great losses stemming from Liverpool and London.
The Minister has said tonight, as he has said before, that there will be no cross-subsidisation; but where on earth will the money come from to pay for the losses which we know exist in Liverpool and in London and which will certainly continue? Inevitably there will be crosssubsidisation—not from a nationalised undertaking, but from the free enterprise port of Manchester, which was built up by local enterprise and local resources. This is being destroyed.
More important, all the security which came from local involvement disappears with the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, what kind of guarantee can the Minister give to the people of Manchester and Bristol that their ports will continue to grow and prosper. I suggest that the moment the N.P.A. is established, the moment there is central control, the moment there is central direction, all the guarantees and all the security which the people of Bristol, Manchester and elsewhere have through their local involvement disappears in one fell swoop.
Apart from that, the Bill will destroy all real, effective competition. In the facilities offered by the ports there is great need for competition. We want to have a situation when shipowners and traders can have some real opportunity to obtain competitive tenders and competitive service. On the other hand, the moment a central State control is established, the moment a National Ports Authority is established to take over almost all the ports and with powers to take over those that remain, there is a situation of virtually no competition. This is a bad situation for the nation.
We should also consider the way the world is going. Where in the world, where there are successful ports, and where there is progress and efficiency, has any country followed this Government's example of trying to nationalise and centralise? In the places where there are successful ports, where there is efficiency, where shipowners are glad to go, such as Rotterdam, Antwerp and elsewhere, there is not nationalisation; there is not centralisation; there is the maximum of competition and the maximum of flexibility.
The one argument which has been used against us is that by opposing the Bill we are creating uncertainty. This is a very novel constitutional doctrine. It means that the moment the Labour Party says that it has designs on an industry—whether it be ports, chemicals or steel—and we say that we shall oppose it, we are allegedly bringing in some kind of uncertainty. This is not a doctrine we can accept.
Time is short. It has been short throughout the proceedings on the Bill; because the Government have made it clear that it is their intention to bludgeon through this piece of Socialism by jackboot tactics at every opportunity. And so they have.
I think that the whole House and the whole country knows that the Bill is a wretched piece of doctrinaire Socialism. For the people it will be costly, bureaucratic, and extravagant. It will do nothing to solve the problems of the ports. We oppose it bitterly, and I hope that the House will reject it tonight.
You said a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no extra time. Even if you gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) a lot more time, he would, unlike Chelsea, never win the Cup.
The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) came into the Chamber, delivered his " commercial ", declared his interest, and then left. I thought his commercial as irrelevant as most commercials, because it had nothing to do with the product.
I associate myself with all the compliments—
The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) complimented my right hon. Friend and said that he was glad that he had always been present in the Committee. The hon. Gentleman could not have been half as glad as I was, for I was sometimes under a little pressure on some of the points which were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins)—like the rest of the House, I am sorry that he will not be with us after the next General Election—asked several questions—[Interruption.] No, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) will be here for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South asked some questions about the National Dock Labour Board. There is nothing in the Bill to alter the National Dock Labour Board's administration of the Dock Labour Scheme. The Board's status is not affected by the Bill in any way.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley)—I am sorry that he will not be supporting the Bill—said last night that there was nothing wrong in being in the middle of the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West pointed out that he might get knocked down, but I would deny that, because Liberals are not often seen near anything that is moving.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West for his support in Committee, both sitting and standing. I am sure that his valuable contributions helped to put the Opposition right on many occasions.
At the end of the Second Reading, I said that it was a good Bill, and nothing said since has convinced me that I should change my mind. Indeed, the attitude and arguments of the Opposition have convinced me more than ever that what we have introduced in this Bill can do nothing but good, not only for our ports but for our national economy.
During the past few months, there have been many changes in our ports. There is a continuing improvement in labour relations, and I am certain that the progress which we shall make with the Bill will strengthen that. The Bill provides an effective framework for dealing with many of the problems in our ports, and within this framework, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), there will be changes coming about in worker participation.
Amid all the glib talk about through transport, what we are really discussing here is people, the employees in our docks, men who give their whole lives to the industry and whose families are so closely associated with it. I think, for
|Division No. 114.]||AYES||[l0.30 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Dewar, Donald||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)|
|Albu, Austen||Doig, Peter||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Driberg, Tom||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Alldritt, Walter||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Anderson, Donald||Eadie, Alex||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Johnson, Carol (Lowisham, S.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Ashley, Jack||Ellis, John||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||English, Michael||Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Judd, Frank|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)||Kelley, Richard|
|Barnes, Michael||Fernyhough, E.||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Barnett, Joel||Finch, Harold||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)|
|Baxter, William||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Kerr Russel (Feltham)|
|Beaney, Alan||Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)||Latham, Arthur|
|Bence, Cyril||Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)||Lawson, George|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Foley, Maurice||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Lee, John (Reading)|
|Binns, John||Forrester, John||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Bishop, E. S.||Fowler, Gerry||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Freeson, Reginaid||Lipton, Marcus|
|Booth, Albert||Galpern, Sir Myer||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Boston, Terence||Garrett, W. E.||Loughlin, Charles|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Ginsburg, David||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Boyden, James||Golding, John||Mabon Dr. J. Dickson|
|Bradley, Tom *||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||McBride, Neil|
|Brooks, Edwin||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||McCann, John|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||MacColl, James|
|Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)||Gregory, Arnold||MacDermot, Niall|
|Brown, Bob(N 'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, W.)||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Macdonald, A. H.|
|Buchan, Norman||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)||McElhone, Frank|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||McGuire, Michael|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.||McKay, Mrs. Margaret|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mackenzie, Cregor (Ruthergien)|
|Cant, R. B.||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Mackie, John|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hamling, William||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Harper, Joseph||Maclennan, Robert|
|Chapman, Donald||Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Coe, Denis'||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||MacPherson, Malcolm|
|Coleman, Donald||Haseldine, Norman||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Hattersicy, Roy||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hazell, Bert||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Heffer, Eric S.||Mapp, Charles|
|Cronin, John||Henig, Stanley||Marquand, David|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hilton, W. S.||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hobden, Dennis||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hooley, Frank||Maxwell, Robert|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Mayhew, Christopher|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Howarth, Robert (Boiton, E.)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)||Howie, W.||Mendelson, John|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hoy, Rt. Hn. James||Mikardo, Ian|
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strertford)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Millan, Bruce|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hunter, Adam||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hynd, John||Molloy, William|
|Delargy, H. J.||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur||Moonman, Eric|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Randall, Harry||Thornton, Ernest|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Rankin, John||Tinn, James|
|Moyle, Roland||Rees, Merlyn||Tomney, Frank|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Tuck, Raphael|
|Murray, Albert||Richard, Ivor||Urwin, T. W.|
|Neal, Harold||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Newens, Stan||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Oakes, Gordon||Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)||Wallace, George|
|Ogden, Eric||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|O'Malley, Brian||Rose, Paul||Weitzman, David|
|Oram, Bert||Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Wellbeloved, James|
|Orbach, Maurice||Rowlands, E.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Orme, Stanley||Sheldon, Robert||Whitaker, Ben|
|Oswald, Thomas||Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Whitlock, William|
|Padley, Walter||Sillars, J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Silverman, Julius||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Paget, R. T.||Slater, Joseph||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Palmer, Arthur||Small, William||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Snow, Julian||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Parker, John (Dagenham)||Spriggs, Leslie||Willis, Rt. Hn. George|
|Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Wilson, William (Coventry, 8.)|
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael||Winnick, David|
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Pentland, Norman||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||Woof, Robert|
|Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||Swain, Thomas|
|Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Symonds, J. B.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Taveme, Dick||Mr. Ernest G. Perry and|
|Price, William (Rugby)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George||Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.|
|Probert, Arthur||Thomson, Rt. Hn. George|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Cordle, John||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Corfield, F. V.||Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Costain, A. P.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hastings, Stephen|
|Astor, John||Crouch, David||Hawkins, Paul|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Crowder, F. P.||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel|
|Awdry, Daniel||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Heseltine, Michael|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Currie, G. B. H.||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hiley, Joseph|
|Balniel, Lord||Dance, James||Hill, J. E. B.|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Batsford, Brian||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Dean, Paul||Holland, Philip|
|Bell, Ronald||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Hordern. Peter|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hornby, Richard|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Hunt, John|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Doughty, Charles||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Biffen, John||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Drayson, G. B.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||du Caral, Rt. Hn. Edward||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Eden, Sir John||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Blaker, Peter||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Emery, Peter||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Body, Richard||Errington, Sir Eric||Jopling, Michael|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Ewing, Mrs. Winifred||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Eyre, Reginald||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Farr, John||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Braine, Bernard||Fisher, Nigel||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Brewis, John||Fletchrer-Cooke, Charles||Kirk, Peter|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fortescue, Tim||Kitson, Timothy|
|Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter||Fortescue, Tim||King, Tom|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||Lambton, Antony|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Fry, Peter Galbratth, Hn. T. G.||Lancaster, Col. C. C.|
|Bryan, Paul||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Lane, David|
|Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&M)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Glover, Sir Douglas||Lawler, Wallace|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Glyn, Sir Richard||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Burden, F, A.||Godner, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)||Goodhart, Philip||Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Goodhew, Victor||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Grant, Anthony||Lubbock, Eric|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert||MacArthur, Ian|
|Chataway, Christopher||Grieve, Percy||Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Gurden, Harold||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Clark, Henry||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain|
|Clegg, Walter||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||McMaster, Stanley|
|Cooke, Robert||Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)|
|Maddan, Martin||Peyton, John||Tapsell, Peter|
|Maginnis, John E.||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)|
|Marten, Neil||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Temple, John M.|
|Maude, Angus||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Tilney, John|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Prior, J. M. L.||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Mawby, Ray||Pym, Francis||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Waddington, David|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Monro, Hector||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wall, Patrick|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Ridsdale, Julian||Walters, Dennis|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Ward, Christopher (Swindon)|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Royle, Anthony||Weather ill, Bernard|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Russelt, Sir Ronald||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Murton, Oscar||Scott, Nicholas||Williams, Donald (Dudley)|
|Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Scott-Hopkins, James||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Neave, Alrey||Sharples, Richard||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & whitby)||Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick|
|Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Silvester, Frederick||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Nott, John||Sinclair, Sir George||Worsley, Marcus|
|Onslow, Cranley||Smith, Dudley (Wwick & L'mington)||Wright, Esmond|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Smith, John (London & W'minster)||Wylie, N. R.|
|Osborn, John (Hallam)||Speed, Keith||Younger, Hn. George|
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Stainton, Keith|
|Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Stodart, Anthony||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Peel, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.||Mr. R. W. Elliott and|
|Percival, Ian||Summers, Sir Spencer||Mr. Jasper More.|
|Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.|