I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 16, after 'rights', insert:
'or worsening of his position'.
In moving the Amendment I am returning to a matter which I raised in Committee, for the words which I am seeking to insert here, namely,
or worsening of his position
have a considerable legislative history. The phrase appeared as long ago as 1947
in the Transport Act of that year. It was present in Section 28(1) of the Transport Act of 1953, in Section 81(1) of the Transport Act of 1962, in Section 135(1) of the Transport Act of 1968, and in Section 37(1) of the Transport (London) Act of 1969. All those Statutes contained this wording, yet for some reason it is missing from the Bill.
The wording has always been meant to cover cases where an employee suffers hardship without direct pecuniary loss. The Bill could give rise to such instances. We know that various interests are involved in bidding for Thomas Cook and Son, Ltd. If a banking concern acquires Thomas Cook, it may well decide to reorganise the financial and foreign exchange side of the business, and top and middle management could be displaced, or replaced, by the new owner's staff.
I should expect personnel affected in that way to be covered by the compensation Clauses of the Bill, but what we really have in mind here is the possible consequential effects upon staff at lower levels in any such reorganisation. There is the question of the identifiable loss of promotion prospects and seniority rights, or the loss of status and responsibility. Such staff may, for example, be transferred to other locations, with the disappearance of such prospects. It is in those circumstances—and I concede that they may be very few—that the Amendment could be helpful.
In Committee the Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to say that he would take advice on this matter. I think he conceded that the principle was not in question, and we are most grateful for that, but he said that it presented a small, yet undefined, difficulty. Although we detest the basic principle underlying the Bill, I am the first to acknowledge that the Minister and the Under-Secretary have been most helpful throughout in trying to protect staff interests. I was, therefore, disappointed that on this last matter, where we are seeking to safeguard the ultimate position of certain staff, the Government did not put down a suitable Amendment to do that.
I hope that the Under-Secretary—or the Minister—will say that he is prepared to take on board this last protective provision on behalf of the staff.
I am only too pleased to take this opportunity to iron out the last creases of the lingering disappointment of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) and to accept the Amendment. I want at the same time to say that I am deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he said in moving the Amendment and for his patience and consideration on this point in Committee. I am glad to be able to meet the hon. Gentleman's point now.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some difficulty has arisen, in that the Motion to secure a debate on Third Reading does not appear on the Order Paper. I cannot understand why this has happened, because my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) and myself, together with other hon. Members, tabled the requisite Motion to secure a debate on Third Reading. The Motion was on the Order Paper last Wednesday, since when the business was transferred. The Amendments were transferred and I had no reason to think that the Motion to secure a Third Reading debate would not be transferred together with the Amendments.
Hon. Members will realise that this puts the Chair in some difficulty. It is the fact that the Notice of Motion to secure a debate on Third Reading was duly put on the Order Paper and was printed when the Bill was set down for consideration last week. That Motion has never been withdrawn. Its disappearance from the Order Paper was inadvertent, although highly inconvenient. Nevertheless, it is no fault of the signatories. I hope that the House will feel able to agree—
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In any event, the Question would have to be put and any question of a possible Division would arise whether or not there was a Motion on the Order Paper. For our part, I think that we should try to meet the convenience of the House by making the debate relevant and terse.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
I have little to add to the overwhelming case made for the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Since the Committee stage was completed, the prospectus has been issued. The House will wish to know that the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company is pleased by the reception that the prospectus has had, and I understand that arrangements that are made for the sale and which are outlined in the prospectus lead him to believe that it will be possible to achieve the Minister's general policy, namely, of a sale that will be designed to obtain the maximum price from an acceptable bidder.
For the rest, the Bill contains the safeguards for the staff to which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) has referred. I therefore urge the House to give this small but useful Bill its Third Reading tonight.
The transfer of a profitable public enterprise to the private sector is to be deprecated at this time, and my hon. Friends and I deprecate this Measure. I remind the Government that the Labour Party, through its National Executive Committee, has decided that such hivings-off will be brought back into public control with no compensation. Members of the Labour Party are watching the Government's actions. In voting against the Third Reading tonight we shall not be voting only against the Government's Measure. We shall be voting for future policy which will put an end to these despicable Measures which the Government are introducing.
The Under-Secretary said in moving the Third Reading of the Bill that the prospectus had been issued since the Committee stage. That is in keening with the unseemly haste we have witnessed in dealing with the Order Paper in the Matter of the Third Reading debate Motion. [Interruption.] I can well understand the wish of some hon. Members opposite to speed up the sale of this very profitable undertaking to some of their friends in the travel trade. But this has nothing to do with what we are considering now.
The prospectus for the sale of Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. was actually in circulation, on the admission of the Under-Secretary of State, before the Committee had referred the Bill to the House. We have reached Third Reading, but the Bill has not a great deal of relevance since we are making merely a temporary transfer. It has been clearly stated that squalid deals of this kind made to compensate for assistance given during the General Election will not be recognised on a change of Government.
The record of this firm which is being transferred to the private sector has been almost impeccable in dealing with holidays and holidaymakers, and we hope that due note will be taken of other sections of the travel trade whose efforts on behalf of holidaymakers have not been of the same high standard. I will not go into the history of the last 12 months, or the last 12 years, but, if the Government do not feel that they have a responsibility to this House and to publicly-owned undertakings, they should have a responsibility to the holidaymakers. Even if the disposal of Thomas Cook to the private sector is to be only for a short spell, the standards which have been created by that firm must be maintained and underwritten.
In adding my support to the Bill, I must express my sincere beliefs, as I attempted to do in the Second Reading debate. I have misgivings about the manner in which Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. is being denationalised. The remarks I made in the Second Reading debate were followed by a letter in The Times, and I had correspondence subsequently with the Minister for Transport Industries, who kindly replied to my comments because he had not been able to do so on Second Reading.
I should like to put on record that, while supporting the Bill, I feel that the Government have missed an important opportunity to denationalise in a manner which might have been more acceptable politically throughout the country than the present proposals will be. As Thomas Cook is a viable, self-contained unit, and has been widely declared as such, it should be sold off as a self-contained unit by a public offer for sale. I do not accept that the objections which have been raised to this proposal in one or two quarters are valid.
First, the question of management, which has been raised as an important issue for a potential buyer, could equally well be obtained through a public offer for sale—if such an offer were to stipulate that 20 to 25 per cent. of the capital were to go to a consortium which would provide satisfactory management and such a consortium could be that which offered the best price and which was acceptable. If an offer for sale were organised on this basis with 25 per cent. of the offer going to one holding, an acceptable consortium, the rest could be offered for public subscription, with small allocations of shares to a wide cross-section of the public on a strictly rationed basis.
I maintain that the other objection to this proposal, namely that the public would not be willing to take up the shares, is not valid. If an acceptable consortium of banks, merchant banks or travel experts were to be seen to be taking up 25 per cent. of the capital at a good price, to inject management expertise and to provide them with a financial incentive, I do not believe the public would be that reticent in subscribing for the balance of the shares, particularly if the balance were offered at a price somewhat lower than the price the consortium was prepared to pay by public tender.
I believe such a formula for denationalisation would satisfy some of the political objections which are being raised by hon. Members opposite to the present method which appears to be likely to be offered. An offer for sale by subscription, with a maximum of not more than £100 of stock per applicant and scaled down even further if there is over-subscription, with preferential rights for employees in Thomas Cook, would be not only politically but socially far more acceptable in a day and age when we are supposed to be encouraging personal savings and investment and when as a Government we are supposed to be sponsoring an increase in capital ownership.
Moreover, this is a formula which has been adopted in Germany for denationalisation. It is a proposal which I believe should have been seriously considered. I accept that it may be too late to do so now, but I feel that the Minister should consider such a proposal in any future denationalisation. This might then prove to be an answer to what is at the moment apparently an insoluble problem of how one can denationalise in an equitable way and at the same time persuade the public to accept the challenge of buying back what, after all, is ours already.
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West):
In moving the Third Reading of the Bill, the Under-Secretary said that overwhelming arguments for the sale of Thomas Cook had been advanced on Second Reading and in Committee. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that in Committee I said that the arguments were phoney—and so they are. The proposition is simply to flog to private enterprise a first-class public enterprise owned by the taxpayer.
I am not sure that the best possible price will be obtained for this very efficient undertaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that we deprecated this sale at the present time. I am sure he will not mind my correcting him by saying that we deprecate this sale at any damned time, not just at this particular time. This is robbery with violence of the British taxpayer, because it means selling off a highly efficient and profitable undertaking. This is the most efficient undertaking in the country. I suggest that it is probably the most efficient travel undertaking world-wide.
I have explained the robbery. The violence is involved because the very quality of Thomas Cook, which has been referred to more than once in Committee but is worthy of repetition, cannot be denied. In fact, Thomas Cook could be likened to a very nice rainbow trout swimming round in a sea of sharks. To be fair to some of the better operators, there are one or two tench and codlings, but none can be compared to Thomas Cook.
I have never known a constituent of mine complain about Thomas Cook on any occasion. I am bold enough to suggest that probably the majority of hon. Members could say the same, but I doubt very much whether they could say that of many other travel organisations.
On this basis and on the basis that it is an absolutely outstandingly successful firm, it is a complete disgrace that this proposition should be before the House. Indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has indicated that he intends to join us in the Lobby against Third Reading.
The Government have been criticised because they nationalised Rolls-Royce. We thought at the time that it was in the national interest to save that company so that it could maintain both its employment and trading in aviation.
We are now putting out to free enterprise a company which we feel will gain advantage from our so doing. We are not selling off Thomas Cook simply for doctrinaire reasons to justify something being pushed out to private enterprise. People who know anything about this business know perfectly well that Thomas Cook is a very good company—the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) has just tried to indicate that it is one of the best in the country in the travel business—but in many respects it is and has been for a number of years a slumbering giant.
There have not been many criticisms of Thomas Cook because most of the criticisms in the travel business have arisen on package tours. The development of package tours has been the most explosive element in travel. It has had its difficulties and teething troubles. Nevertheless, it has provided tremendous opportunities for world-wide travel to many people in this country who would not have been able to go abroad if travel of this kind at the cheapest possible rates had not been put on the market. Thomas Cook has completely missed out in this sphere. It could have been in at the beginning just after the war; it could almost have controlled the market. Certainly it would have been one of the big competitors. It is not in this sphere at all, but it is now coming into it.
We believe that making Thomas Cook a public, not a nationalised, company with its shares made available to the public on the Stock Exchange, will stimulate the profitability of the company. Because it will stimulate the profitability of the company, it will stimulate the expansion of the company. Because it will be both more profitable and expanding—it is only marginally profitable now; it is not earning anything like sufficient on its capital—it will be good for the staff.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley)—I am glad that my right hon. Friend accepted his Amendment—need not concern himself about the staff of Thomas Cook. The staff will do much better when this company is reorganised, re-stimulated and revitalised, which is what will happen. The hon. Gentleman said that when the Labour Party gets back into power it will take the company back into the public sector. Will he ask the staff about such a proposition at that time?
No. The staff are now looking forward to great new opportunities. If hon. Gentlemen opposite ask the staff, do they imagine that the staff will accept from the Labour Party that in three or four years' time, if perchance—it is unlikely—the Labour Party is back in power, this revitalised company should be brought back into the nationalised sector and made unprofitable again? This is impossible.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the staff of Thomas Cook are the best paid and have the best general conditions of employment, in superannuation and other matters, of any other sector of the travel trade? The hon. Gentleman asserted that the staff may lose and may have better conditions by moving over under the denationalisation. That is quite wrong. It is one of the serious worries of the staff in this matter.
I have never said that the staff of Thomas Cook are treated other than well. In Committee I said that Thomas Cook and its staff had provided some of the best brains in the business, but that many had gone to other companies.
If the company is successful in its new rôle—as I believe it will be—and if it is expansive, the change will be good for the staffs, who will get even better opportunities for advancement and better salaries.
We believe that this is a good Bill and we support it.
The House has now reached the end of an irrelevant and frivolous exercise all of which, on the part of the Government, has been dictated by dogma. During the passage of the Bill no convincing reason has been advanced why Thomas Cook and Son should be offered for sale to private interests. The Minister has stubbornly held to his doctrinal course.
On Second Reading the Minister stated that Cooks had had a dismal profit record, and he made great play with recent figures. It is not without significance that he chose the year 1970, a bad year in the travel trade generally. He conveniently ignored the fact that the average profit for the last eight years was £1½ million per year. We could argue for a long time about whether the recent slump is due to market conditions, the type of ownership or management shortcomings.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that had Cooks entered the package tour business in the late 'fifties instead of regarding it as infra dig, many prominent travel firms would not exist today. There was also a reluctance on the part of the management of Thomas Cook to sell other firms' tours until very recently. It was only in recent years, following pressure from the staff and their trade union, that the company entered into this exercise. But now we learn that this practice yielded a £1·23 million turnover in 1970, and this has shot up to £4½ million in the nine months to 31st July, 1971.
I return to the point I made on Second Reading. This question is not one of ownership but of outlook on the part of the company. It underlines the lesson that any future Labour Government will have to learn, that when we nationalise any industry it is necessary to have in charge of that industry people who believe in the concept of public ownership.
This is a problem of outlook, not ownership. What is not in dispute however, despite the philosophical and political differences between the Front Benches, is the potential which still exists in Thomas Cook and Sons. The total business done by Cooks, world-wide, rose £188·5 million in 1967 to £291·3 million in 1971. There has been, of course, as I acknowledge, an erratic profit on the travel side where this type of business is subject to many ups and down and is particularly vulnerable to inflation, but the real interest of the City is centred on the banking interests of Thomas Cook and Sons where the combined travellers' cheques and commission on sale of foreign currencies brought in a profit of £850,000 in 1970 on £170 million worth of sales.
There is a close association between both sides of the business, travel and currency, yet we know that the travel interests are wary of the banking operations of Cooks and banking circles are indifferent to the travel aspect, and that is why we have a legitimate fear that this famous and highly reputable company will subject to a process of asset-stripping which will render the business apart.
I gave the right hon. Gentleman the Minister an invitation to give his views on this in Committee, but characteristically he declined. It is essential, in our view, that the integrity of the business should be respected and the proper interests of the staff safeguarded. These objectives could best have been achieved by preserving the public nature of the enterprise. We strongly object on this side to the principles which have inspired this Bill. The Minister described it earlier—I believe on Second Reading—as modest and reasonable. It is nothing of the sort. It is a concession to the worst instincts of the Conservative Party.
It has placed in jeopardy the one travel firm whose record is a byword for reliability and has created anxiety, justifiably, throughout the private travel trade sector who rightly fear that the new travel purchasers of Cooks will establish a monopoly situation with the acquisition of 155 outlets for business, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) with his interests in the matter, knows that perfectly well.
Many problems plague transport at present and they cry out for the Minister's attention. I find it astonishing that this priority should be given to a disruptive and mischievous exercise. Having failed to redeem their election promises on prices and unemployment, the Government have sanctioned this Bill as part of the hiving-off programme which figured prominently in their last election manifesto. Undoubtedly, it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to gain the plaudits of the assembled faithful at the next Conservative Party Conference where little else will be on offer. It is not an action of which he, in his office, can be proud.
We are right to oppose this Bill as a shoddy and contemptible misuse of parliamentary time. A national asset is being squandered for private profit and an opportunity has been lost to develop a wider State-owned and controlled national tourist business.
The Bill is another instalment of the repugnant, petty and vindictive approach of the Conservative Party towards profitable sections of nationalised industries. The country will not be impressed by these little acts of spite. That is why the Labour Party national executive and the party conference have felt justified in making it unmistakably clear that those parts of nationalised industries hived off by this Government will be re-acquired on a basis that will bring no financial reward or, indeed, recompense to those who may now seek to capitalise on the sordid opportunities that the political doctrines of the Government make available to them.
For those reasons I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in opposing the Bill.
May I first say how grateful I was to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) for his kindly tribute to me for the delicacy with which I have handled the Bill. I was a little sorry when he saw fit to depart from that nice, gentle, friendly tone into a whole lot of adjectives that come ill from him, because he is a kindly and friendly person. For once, he seemed to lack conviction. But I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman gave a great deal of pleasure to some of his hon. Friends. No one would grudge them a little pleasure from time to time these days, because they have a long way to look for such things.
We do not get much pleasure from my hon. Friend's deviation from the national executive's declaration that there would be no compensation to those who take part in hiving off the industry, which is slightly different from saying that there will be no financial gain. I call upon my hon. Friend to put that matter right. As an executive council man, he must now say that there will be no compensation, as distinct from no financial gain.
There are times when it is wrong to give way. The hon. Gentleman took the opportunity not only to make a a speech but to prosecute an argument he has with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I would not want to intervene in such bitter matters on so friendly an occasion.
We have had a most enjoyable debate. A number of hon. Members who wish to keep their talent for hyperbole exercised gave it a good trot in the open air, and no doubt felt the better for it. I do not wish to reply to the debate at great length. The arguments for the Measure have already been fully advanced and are very convincing. The hon. Gentleman accused me of following a doctrinaire course. If this is his definition of a doctrinaire course, I am comparatively happy to follow it.
One last word—
I have to draw the line somewhere.
Reference has been made to the name of this world-famous firm being a byword for reliability. I do not challenge that. But I remind the House of the years in which the name and reputation of Thomas Cook and Son were made and built up. At the time, Thomas Cook and Son was a private enterprise operation. It passed into the public sector only as a result of an accident of war.
This is a legend which is fast gaining currency. It is true that, during the German occupation of Brussels, the appropriate agency in London acquired Thomas Cook and Son. Nevertheless, it was taken over as a conscious act of public ownership in the 1947 Transport Act.
I was trying to draw a veil of decency over that foolish act of policy which the Labour Government insisted on perpetrating. The fact remains that Thomas Cook and Son really passed into public ownership during and as a result of the war. We are putting that right. If the hon. Gentleman says that we are also affecting the 1947 Act, I accept that without feeling that it is necessarily a very penetrating rebuke.
I hope that the House will now agree to give this very modest Measure a Third Reading.
We must make it clear to the Minister that, although we enjoy his sallies, this is a very serious matter for us.
The right hon. Gentleman passed over lightly the way he thought that Thomas Cook and Son came into public ownership. However, it remained under public ownership under successive Conservative Governments. I remind the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that, if there were shortcomings, it did not get off to a flying start with package tours, and that, if the company was a slumbering giant, it was in the 1950s and early 1960s when the opportunity should have been taken, and there was a Conservative Minister in charge at the time.
We oppose the Bill because we consider it to be totally irrelevant to the economic situation facing the country. It is contrary to the interests of the traveling
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) did not understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East if he thought that there was any deviation from policy. Since I do not want any dubiety about the situation, perhaps I might read from the Resolution passed last February by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party and endorsed at our annual conference. It reads:
This National Executive expresses complete opposition to the stated intention of the Conservative Government to hive off from present nationalised industries certain assets which at the moment are making valuable contributions to the finances of those industries. We therefore believe the next Labour Government should take back again into public ownership any such assets which have been hived off without any compensation being paid to the purchasers of those assets.
It is because we hold firmly to this principle against hiving off publicly-owned assets and because of the irrelevance of what is proposed in the Bill that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose its Third Reading.
|Division No. 44.]||AYES||[11.14 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Bray, Ronald||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Clegg, Walter|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Cockeram, Eric|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Cooke, Robert|
|Astor, John||Buck, Antony||Coombs, Derek|
|Atkins Humphrey||Burden, F. A.||Cooper, A. E.|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Benyon, W.||Carlisle, Mark||Cormack, Patrick|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Crouch, David|
|Biffen, John||Channon, Paul||Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)|
|Blaker, Peter||Chapman, Sydney||Dean, Paul|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Chichester-Clark, R.||Drayson, G. B.|
|Bowden, Andrew||Churchill, W. S.||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Dykes, Hugh||Kershaw, Anthony||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Eden, Sir John||Kilfedder, James||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Kinsey, J. R.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Eyre, Reginald||Kirk, Peter||Redmond, Robert|
|Farr, John||Kitson, Timothy||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Fell, Anthony||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Knox, David||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lane, David||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fortescue, Tim||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Foster, Sir John||Le Marchant, Spencer||Rost, Peter|
|Fowler, Norman||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fox, Marcus||Longden, Gilbert||Sharples, Richard|
|Fry, Peter||Loveridge, John||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Gibson-Watt, David||MacArthur, Ian||Simeons, Charles|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||McCrindle, R. A.||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Goodhart, Philip||McLaren, Martin||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Goodhew, Victor||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Gorst, John||McMaster, Stanley||Soref, Harold|
|Gower, Raymond||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Spence, John|
|Green, Alan||Maddan, Martin||Sproat, Iain|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Madel, David||Stainton, Keith|
|Grylls, Michael||Mather, Carol||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Gummer, Selwyn||Maude, Angus||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Gurden, Harold||Mawby, Ray||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Sutcliffe, John|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Miscampbell, Norman||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hastings, Stephen||Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Havers, Michael||Moate, Roger||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Hawkins, Paul||Molyneaux, James||Trew, Peter|
|Hay, John||Money, Ernie||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Monks, Mrs. Connie||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Monro, Hector||Waddington, David|
|Hiley, Joseph||More, Jasper||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Holland, Philip||Morrison, Charles||Warren, Kenneth|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Mudd, David||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hordern, Peter||Murton, Oscar||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hornby, Richard||Neave, Airey||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Wilkinson, John|
|Hunt, John||Normanton, Tom||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Nott, John||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Onslow, Cranley||Woodnutt, Mark|
|James, David||Osborn, John||Worsley, Marcus|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Jessel, Toby||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Peel, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. John Stradling Thomas.|
|Jopling, Michael||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Dunnett, Jack|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Eadie, Alex|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Ellis, Tom|
|Ashton, Joe||Cohen, Stanley||English, Michael|
|Atkinson, Norman||Conlan, Bernard||Evans, Fred|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Ewing, Henry|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Crawshaw, Richard||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dalyell, Tam||Foot, Michael|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davidson, Arthur||Ford, Ben|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Forrester, John|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Gilbert, Dr. John|
|Bradley, Tom||Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Golding, John|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Deakins, Eric||Gourlay, Harry|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Buchan, Norman||Dempsey, James||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Doig, Peter||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Dormand, J. D.||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Cant, R. B.||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hamling, William|
|Carmichael, Neil||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hardy, Peter|
|Harper, Joseph||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Marks, Kenneth||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hattersley, Roy||Marquand, David||Sillars, James|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Small, William|
|Horam, John||Meacher, Michael||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Spearing, Nigel|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Mikardo, Ian||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Millan, Bruce||Stallard, A. W.|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Milne, Edward||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Strang, Gavin|
|Hunter, Adam||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Swain, Thomas|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Janner, Greville||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|John, Brynmor||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Oakes, Gordon||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Ogden, Eric||Tinn, James|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||O'Halloran, Michael||Torney, Tom|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||O'Malley, Brian||Urwin, T. W.|
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Orme, Stanley||Varley, Eric G.|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Oswald, Thomas||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Palmer, Arthur||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Kerr, Russell||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Kinnock, Neil||Pavitt, Laurie||Wallace, George|
|Lambie, David||Pendry, Tom||Watkins, David|
|Lamond, James||Pentland, Norman||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lawson, George||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Prescott, John||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Whitlock, William|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Price, William (Rugby)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Woof, Robert|
|McElhone, Frank||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|McGuire, Michael||Roper, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Rose, Paul B.||Mr. J. D. Concannon and|
|Maclennan, Robert||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Mr. James A. Dunn.|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|