§ CONTROL OF THE USE OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES
§ Mr. Swingler
I beg to move Amendment No. 258, in page 94, line 1, leave out 'ten' and insert 'eleven'.
The Amendment, like Amendment No. 268, arises from an undertaking given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who said that he would consider whether the lower limit of pay load above which a special authorisation was required for a load of the so-called bulk commodities should be raised from 10 to 11 tons. He said that at col. 2472 of the Committee Report.
As my hon. Friend said in Committee, the arguments are evenly balanced. Raising the figure to 11 tons is probably justified on the grounds of flexibility. It will help to get rid of a small but awkward anomaly which might arise in a few cases, where it will be possible for a lorry not exceeding 16 tons plated, and therefore not requiring an authorisation, to carry more than 10 tons of a bulk commodity without authorisation, while an identical pay load in a lorry just over 16 tons would need an authorisation. There are very few lorries not exceeding 1749 16 tons plated which are capable of carrying more than 11 tons, so the Amendment will virtually avoid that anomaly. I hope that the House will find this concession acceptable.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
We had a full debate en a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister was unable to accept our Amendment then, but we are glad that on further consideration the Government have recognised that this is a much more sensible figure.
The Government have tabled a number of Amendments, and in the interests of saving time I have spoken briefly or not at all. We recognise that by this and other Amendments the Government have moved towards our viewpoint and recognised the arguments which we advanced in Committee. We are glad that they have done so. We wish that they had been ready to accept our Amendments in Committee, because had they done so they would have saved a lot of time and we could have moved on to other matters. We are, naturally, pleased to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Bessell
I join the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) in thanking the Minister of State for the Amendment. The matter was debated at some length in Committee, and was the subject of many representations to hon. Members on both sides. I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman about other Amendments which have been accepted, including some of my own. That has undoubtedly been helpful, and this degree of flexibility is very much appreciated.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Carmichael
I beg to move Amendment No. 264, in page 94, leave out lines 24 to 26.
The Amendment is necessary to remove the words inserted into the Clause in Committee by Amendment No. 1209 in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), which was accepted in error.
The effect of the words in the Clause is to disapply the definition of "controlled journey", which is relevant to the need to hold a special authorisation, to Devon, Cornwall and the development areas. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's 1750 Amendment is uncertain, but its intention is clearly contrary to Government policy, and will seriously undermine the whole quantity licensing system. These areas will not be affected by quantity licensing any more than will other areas.
§ Mr. Bessell
It is no good the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) making comments of that kind from a sedentary position. The facts are simple. The Amendment was in my name in Committee, and the subject matter of it was debated.
When we came to the vote, the Chairman of Standing Committee F asked clearly whether I wished to move the Amendment formally, and I said, "Yes." He then put the Question, the Conservative Whip gave the customary "Aye", the Chairman looked at the Government benches, whence there was no response or dissent. Quite properly, he declared the Amendment carried. Am I now being asked to believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Transport, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the two Government Whips and practically all the Labour backbenchers on the Committee were not aware of the business being transacted—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am listening with profound interest, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Bessell
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you will understand that I am incensed, having had an Amendment of considerable importance to my constituents and the development areas accepted, to find, on Report, that the Government have gone back on their word.
However, let us suppose that it was accepted in error. That in no way justifies this Amendment. Having made the error, if it were an error, the least that the Government could do is honour their undertaking which they gave by the original acceptance. The background to these three lines is clear. Subsection (2) defines the purpose of the foregoing subsection, which in turn sets out the controlled journeys relating to the quantity 1751 licensing system. I argued in Committee, supported by Members of the Opposition, that this would impose severe hardship on the people of Devon, Cornwall and the development areas.
There is a high rate of unemployment in Devon and Cornwall, an ageing population and a serious exodus of young people in search of jobs in the urban areas. There are problems not only of unemployment but of low wages. I would be the first to admit that the Government have tried to deal with this by designating most of Cornwall a development area and this has helped the county, but conditions are still bad in Scotland, Wales and other areas, where hardship exists which does not exist in the country as a whole.
Therefore, it is reasonable to exempt those areas from the conditions of quality licensing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quantity licensing."] I am sorry, quantity licensing. Indeed, if quantity licensing is to be applied to these areas, it will be a complete reversal of the Government's avowed policy of assisting those areas; that is why I was not surprised that they should have decided to be consistent with that policy by accepting my Amendment in Committee.
Another factor is that, in many cases certainly in Cornwall, there are very bad road communications which would make quantity licensing an even greater burden. Many journeys would be impossible within the prescribed hours, so we are also affected by the provisions for drivers' hours. But, if we could have relief over quantity licensing, the position would be different.
There are many crucial Amendments to come and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on this Amendment, so I will not take any longer. I know that they will oppose by every means in their power this complete betrayal of the people of Devon, Cornwall and the development areas by the Government going back on their solemn word in a matter in which they had appeared to show commonsense and leniency. I hope that we shall oppose the Amendment here and that, if we fail here, it will be dealt with in another place.
§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has tried to blow 1752 this matter into a big balloon, but it is a very light balloon and it will drift away. We admit that an error was made and everyone knew that it was. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is not so serious about this. He is more lighthearted and effervescent and up in the clouds, while the hon. Member for Bodmin is often despondent, like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).
We admit the error, of course. The Government Whip, who was distracted by something else in the Committee—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We can mention the fact that there was an error, but we cannot discuss at length the causes of the error. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Manuel
I can say that there was an error. But is it to be penalised by writing in the lines which the hon. Gentleman wants? He made a mistake, because of lack of time, in referring to this as quantity licensing, when it is quality licensing—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Whether it is quantity or quality licensing, the question is whether it should apply to Cornwall and Devon and designated development areas.
§ Mr. Manuel
The quality of my speech seems to be deteriorating. I made the same error as the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the House will forgive the original error, as it usually does when it is admitted, and that we can proceed.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
This is not an error which just leads to some small change. The effect of the Amendment will be enormous. It is extraordinary that the Government should seek to remove an exemption for development areas which was inserted in Committee and that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents a development area himself, should move the Amendment. All the lip-service paid by Government spokesmen to their supposed policies of regional development, and all Ministerial statements on this subject put together would stretch from Land's End to John o' Groats, two areas which would be affected by the Amendment—
§ Mr. Campbell
The hon. Gentleman should listen when some of the things which he has mixed up, including quality and quantity licensing, are explained.
If the Government intended to accept the original Amendment, why do they suddenly change their minds about four weeks later? There has been no sudden improvement in the situation in Scotland in that time. If, as the Minister said, this was an error—and it was not intended at all—then this surely is an admission of incompetence in the Committee. The Amendment went through when there were three Ministers and two Government Whips present in the Committee. A Government whose errors are better than their decisions are a very peculiar Government indeed.
The exemption from subsection (2) is, in effect, an exemption from subsection (l)(a). It means that the controlled journey provisions of 100 miles would not apply to Devon, Cornwall or any development area. No licensing restrictions would be placed on distance, and this would be welcome to trade and industry throughout the development areas. It would go a long way to allay the anxiety which there is about the burdens which this system of quantity licensing will place on these areas.
If the Government persist with the Amendment, they will be condemned for a cat-and-mouse episode with the development areas. Certainly the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) will have been treated extremely badly, since this was his proposal which the Government accepted. Admittedly, the Government had already earlier voted down some excellent Conservative Amendments which would have had the same effect.
In the development areas there are broadly two situations. The first is in the industrial areas near freightliner terminals, where the proposed quantity licensing system over distances of 100 miles or more will be cumbersome and laborious. Some incredibly difficult decisions will have to be taken by licensing authorities, whether they are taken against the background of the three 1754 criteria in the Bill, against the criteria of speed, reliability and cost, or whether —and this will come in a later Amendment—other factors will be brought in. These will be difficult decisions and the result may be that British Rail's or the Freight Corporation's objections may be upheld and various industries in these areas will then lose their flexibility. They will not be able to use the road services to which they have been used at short notice and they will become dependent on the railways for certain services.
I will give only two examples at this stage. The first is the effect of these provisions on the Scottish fire clay industry, which at present provides 44 Per cent. of the fire clay in Britain. This industry can now compete with the English fire clay industry because its transport is not too expensive. It also does not have to suffer the breakages which it suffered when fire clay and fire bricks were sent by rail.
The second example is that of perishable commodities like fish. In the herring fishing industry seasonal landings are sometimes of a greater magnitude than usual and transport is required at short notice. Normally road transport is able to deal with the situation rapidly. This may not be possible if this cumbersome system of quantity licensing is imposed on the industry.
There is, then, the second situation of the remoter development areas. I refer to areas where there is either no railway link or where the railways cannot provide a competitive service with road transport. In such cases the Government have said that applications for licences—or "special authorisations" as they are called—will be granted more or less automatically. If that is so, why not exempt these areas? Why make them go through the process of detailing every possible journey, load or return load and then have to apply for special authorisations to coyer those details? There are many industries which, if they could be exempted from this application procedure—even if the licences will be granted automatically— would be greatly relieved to know that they can send their goods—their own goods in their own lorries—more than 100 miles without having to go through all this artificial procedure.
My hon. Friends and I are utterly opposed to this idea of quantity licensing. 1755 We believe that firms should be allowed to take their own decisions on what is the most efficient method of transport for their goods. The right way for the railways to attract traffic—which is what they are doing at present—is for them to make their services more efficient, in particular through freightliner services. The users of transport are those most concerned. I refer not to the road haulage industry itself but to people who may not run their own transport. They are concerned about getting their goods to the ports and to their customers on time and in good condition.
Then there are those who use then-own transport and run their goods in their own lorries. They, too, are much concerned about the system of quantity licensing being proposed. Every trade and industry that uses transport does not like this system of quantity licensing because it is bound to be damaging to the economy of the country as a whole. The least the Government can do, if they insist on introducing this system, is to exempt the development areas from it.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
We have been treated this morning by the Opposition to a debate which has reached the nadir of irrelevance to the matter under discussion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made their views on quantity licensing clear at great length at a number of sittings on the Bill, but to tack on to the Government Amendment a debate on the broader issues of quantity licensing is, to say the least—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Chair will take care of what is in order.
§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) dealt extensively with the subject of quantity licensing and the provisions covering the development areas. Surely we must be enabled to reply to the points he made.
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair allows hon. Members to reply to what is said in debate.
§ Mr. Maclennan
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that the elimination of the three lines which we are considering will have a 1756 profound effect from John o'Groat's to Land's End. As I represent John o'Groat's, I might be permitted to comment on the issue. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that the inclusion of these three lines make obsolute nonsense of the quantity licensing provisions. It is typical of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Bill that they would rather make a nonsense of the Measure than seek constructively to amend it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This has been typical of their approach throughout.
The Member for Moray and Nairn said that if these three lines were allowed to remain the position of certain perishable goods would, somehow, be protected. I am at a loss to see how this would be achieved. In any event, the position of the carriage of such perishable goods as fish would appear to be well covered by the requirement that an objection by British Rail cannot be sustained if the goods cannot be reliably carried. This would appear to be a classic case by which the goods to be carried are protected.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
The hon. Member was not in the Committee. He does not realise that we had a debate particularly on the question of fish and the Government were not able to give that assurance.
§ Mr. Maclennan
The hon. Member should not assume that because I did not attend throughout the Committee sittings I have not read the proceedings. I have read the Report of all five sittings at which this matter was considered.
The hon. Member suggested that we should retain these three lines in the Bill because that would protect the remoter areas. The question of exemption of the remoter areas was considered. Apart from other difficulties, there was the problem of definition. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have taken particular exception to a parallel attempt to define remote areas with reference to the Selective Employment Tax. They are extremely inconsistent.
§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)
The hon. Member must know that the definition complained of with regard to hotels has nothing to do with remoteness of an area, but to employment.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The only definition we are concerned with here is Devon and Cornwall and certain development areas.
§ Mr. Maclennan
These three lines would have the effect of rendering entirely incomprehensible and unworkable the quantity licensing procedures. In opposing this Amendment the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) cannot seriously have been attempting to improve the Bill by the inclusion of these lines.
§ Mr. Maclennan
If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed, I have almost finished my speech. It is almost impossible to determine what kind of effect this provision will have. The specific reference to Devon and Cornwall would put them into a different category from other areas.
§ Mr. Maclennan
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn considered that they were in the same category as John o'Groat's.
§ Mr. Bessell
Does the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seriously think it right that a decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, irrespective of how it was taken, should be reversed in this manner? Does he think that that is showing proper respect for Parliament?
§ Mr. Maclennan
I wish that I had given way to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) before. It is quite obvious that a nonsense must be removed from the Bill, at whatever stage it was included in it. It is a matter for satisfaction that my hon. Friend has had this opportunity to rectify an inadvertent error which occurred at an earlier stage.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson
There is a serious point about this Amendment concerning Cornwall. I said "Hear, hear" when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that there was something different about Devon and Cornwall from other development areas, because that is quite true. 1758 The Minister of State said in his opening remarks that Devon and Cornwall would not be affected by quantity licensing more than any other district, but that is not so.
The geographical features of the district are not appreciated. Frequently I am accosted by hon. Members who say, "I have been in your part of the world". When I ask where they have been, they say they have been to Exeter. Exeter is half way between London and Penzance. The West Country consists of a long narrow peninula sticking out into the Atlantic. If one uses a compass on the map and puts the point into Cornwall and then makes a circle, one finds that there is land for a distance of 100 miles to the east and possibly to the west, but the rest of the circle is in the sea. My house in Truro is only nine miles from the south coast of Cornwall, and 14 miles from the north coast, but I am several hours journey from Saltash and the same distance from Penzance. This provision of 100 miles radius as the crow flies is absolute nonsense because most of the circle would be in the sea. Road hauliers in Cornwall, and to a lesser extent those in Devon, will be much affected by the provisions of this Bill.
§ Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)
The hon. Member is assuming the rôole of an executive of the Tourist Board.
§ 11.15 a.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson
This has nothing to do with the Tourist Board. This Clause deals with quantity licensing as applied to the carriage of goods in a large goods vehicle by road. The provision which exempts Devon and Cornwall exempts them from the necessity of getting a special authorisation making a journey exceeding 100 miles. That is a reasonable provision because 100 miles from any point in Cornwall is mostly in the sea. It is not reasonable to put a provision of this sort into an Act of Parliament. It is reasonable to have some special provision for Devon and Cornwall. I admit that this applies much more to Cornwall because Devon is much wider.
This Clause as to quantity licensing, taken in conjunction with a driver's hours, will make a very substantial difference to those engaged in horticulture or the fish trade. It will also be difficult to obtain agricultural produce. 1759 Small producers of vegetables and comparatively small producers of fish in Cornwall will not be able to supply the districts which they supply at present. There is a strong case for special consideration for Devon and Cornwall.
§ Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)
The hon. Member who represents John o'Groat's has much less well-informed constituents than those who reside at Land's End. They are well aware of the very real dangers which these quantity licensing provisions will entail for their livelihood apparently than those who live in the North of Scotland.
Under the pressure of the Guillotine, I shall make my remarks brief and factual, although I do so with reluctance because this Clause is of fundamental importance to the future livelihood of my constituents in the West Country. They are seriously concerned about its effects. The Minister said that these provisions would not affect development areas any more than other areas. I think that was the gist of what he said. The Minister is very badly informed, or else he misunderstands the worries which these provisions will cause, if he believes that to be the case.
In Cornwall we do not have any market of any size within 100 miles of my constituency. The nearest market of half a million people is 200 miles or more away. Although it is possible to draw a line as the crow flies between Land's End and Carmarthen and to say that if a haulier took goods to Carmarthen he would not need a quantity licence, if he took goods to Carmarthen he would not need a quantity licence, if he took those goods to Bristol he would need such a licence. This is the kind of anomaly which makes complete nonsense of these provisions. Carmarthen is 292 miles by road, yet for that journey no quantity licence would be needed. A quantity licence will be required to carry goods to Bristol, which lies 192 miles from my constituency, much nearer by road. This is just one of the ridiculous anomalies.
To a great extent, Cornwall's livelihood depends on getting fresh produce, particularly fish and vegetables, to the main metropolitan markets. If we are not able to obtain quantity licences to 1760 get our fish and vegetables to the main metropolitan markets of London, Birmingham and Manchester, it will have a devastating effect on the livelihood on the whole of West Cornwall. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this is an area of exceptionally low incomes and high unemployment.
What will happen to the road transport industry in these areas if, as a result of the non-granting of a quantity licence, the more profitable traffic is creamed off the roads on to the railways? If that happens, clearly the operations of road transport will not be economic, unless tariffs are increased substantially. The raising of road transport tariffs in these areas will have a serious effect on the cost of living and on the attraction of light industry to the development areas upon which we greatly depend.
It will be asserted that we are protected because a quantity licence will be granted, unless it can be shown that the railways are able to compete on speed, reliability and cost. This does not give us any comfort, because how can a licensing authority better decide whether the railways can compete on speed, reliability and cost than people who have been in the business all their lives and have years of practical experience?
In Committee the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) understood this point very well. He put the point very well in these words:I have always thought that transport managers and traffic managers, incompetent though many of them may be, are in a far better position to make transport allocation decisions than is a licensing authority." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 23rd April, 1968, Col. 2678.]This is our belief. The hon. Gentleman went on to say several times that his objection to the whole quantity licensing provisions was based on practical reasons and that quantity licensing would not work in practice.
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)
It is worth my reminding the hon. Gentleman that a recent survey conducted in the Midlands between 1953 and 1958 proved conclusively that only 13 Per cent. of transport managers had a detailed breakdown of ton mileage costs.
§ Mr. Nott
I was merely referring to what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee. I share his view that a transport 1761 manager is in a much better position to assess speed, reliability and cost than is a licensing authority which may be appointed by the Minister. I do not think that a licensing authority is in a position to judge this. If there is an inquiry, how can a tribunal assess the accuracy of figures produced by the railways? We all know from the hearings of the transport users' consultative committees that the figures produced by the railways are absolute mumbo-jumbo. How will a tribunal be able to make a decision which transport users over many years can make from experience?
I understand that the basic idea of quantity licensing is to shift perhaps 10 Per cent. of traffic from the roads to the railways. Why must we have this cumbersome bureaucratic licensing procedure to achieve this shift, when probably it was already in the process of happening under the freightliner arrangements? What is the object of having this cumbersome procedure which will do great damage to outlying areas like my own which have no markets within 100 miles and which therefore will have to apply for quantity licences on practically every one of their principal industries? Why must we have this procedure when people who have been in the transport business for 20 to 30 years, even though some of them may be rather inefficient, can judge speed, reliability and cost far better than any bureaucracy appointed by the Minister under the Bill?
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
I have some sympathy with some of the sentiments expressed by hon. Members opposite, but I am amazed at the fantastic assertion by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), whom I normally respect as somewhat of an authority on Cornish affairs, that Exeter is half way between London and Penzance. As a former long-distance driver, I was surprised to hear this, because Exeter is 170 miles from London and Penzance is 281. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's other comments had some substance.
If Devon and Cornwall are to be excluded from the provisions of quantity licensing, it is only logical and consistent to exclude the whole country. Why should Devon and Cornwall be put in a privileged position? Though I back 1762 quality licensing to the hilt and though I am very much in favour of a reduction of drivers' hours, I have always said— in Committee and at meetings throughout the country—that I do not think that quantity licensing is needed; because, if we say that we must have a licensing system to prop up the National Freight Corporation and freightliners, we are saying, in other words, that we do not believe in freightliners.
If we are to exclude only Devon and Cornwall and the development areas, we are not taking into the account the fact that many road hauliers operating from Devon and Cornwall have back-loading arrangements with hauliers operating from areas outside the development areas. Industry in Devon and Cornwall and in the areas at present exempted will be just as much catered for by operators within the areas as by operators outside the areas.
§ Mr. Bessell
If the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Minister to remove the quantity licensing system, there will be no difficulty between the two sides of the House on this Amendment.
§ Mr. Huckfield
I had rather suspected that that would be so. Because there are some intricate link-ups between hauliers operating from the areas which are at present excluded and hauliers operating from the Midlands, Manchester or London, it is just as logical, even on that argument, to exclude the whole country from quantity licensing. Apart from Devon and Cornwall and the development areas being in a privileged position from that point of view—I have tabled an Amendment, which has not been selected to cover the back-loading point—if only Devon and Cornwall and the development areas were excluded, it would put transport managers in those areas also in a very privileged position.
I believe that the person who can best decide how his goods be sent is the transport manager, because many transport managers have an infinity of goods, products, loads and destinations which only they can have a full, competent knowledge of and whose method of transport only they can decide.
If in future Cornish transport managers will be able to make transport allocation 1763 decisions on a whole range of considerations, whereas in the rest of the country licensing authorities will have to make transport allocation decisions on a basis of speed, reliability and cost, it will mean that Cornish transport managers will be in a privileged position. On this argument it is logical to exclude the whole country. A transport manager in Devon and Cornwall takes into consideration the availability of transport, speed of delivery and a whole range of quality and service factors which any transport manager who is doing his job properly takes into account. Transport managers in Devon and Cornwall and the development areas only will be able to do this. Transport managers in the rest of the country will have to go to the licensing authority and have a decision made on the three criteria.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on Devon and Cornwall, but the words in the Bill cover all the development areas, virtually the whole of Scotland and a very large area of Wales. Almost half the country would be affected.
§ Mr. Huckfield
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have pointed out that the Amendment includes not only Devon and Cornwall but also the areas to which he has referred.
By far the most serious consequence of the Bill is the statement that it makes that the Government believe in freight-liners for Devon and Cornwall and the development areas but do not believe in freightliners for the rest of the country. I have always said that the freightliner must stand on its own two feet, and it must do so. The article in the business section of the Financial Times yesterday shows quite conclusively that the freight-liner is standing on its own two feet.
Why have a licensing system in one part of the country to prop up the freight-liner when there is no such licensing system in the other half? Road hauliers and others who wish to send traffic by freightliner in one half of the country will be antagonised by the licensing system. I hope that in the other half of the country there will be co-operation between the British Railways Board, the National Freight Corporation and road hauliers. The application of quantity licensing to those parts of the country 1764 to which it still applies in the Bill has had the direct effect of antagonising road hauliers and dissuading them from sending traffic by freightliner. This effect will apply to one half of the country but not to the other half.
If the whole country is not excluded from quantity licensing, licensing authorities will be in an extremely difficult position. The northern licensing authority, the Scottish licensing authority and the western licensing authority when they come to decide whether or not an applicant should get a special authorisation, will be able to take into account a whole range of factors apart from cost, reliability and speed. In the other licensing authority areas the only factors to which consideration can be given, except in a marginal case—and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that concession —will be cost, reliability and speed.
There are so many inconsistencies if quantity licensing is applied to one half of the country and not to the other, that the only logical thing to do is to cut out altogether quantity licensing.
§ Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
Although there was a great deal of cogency in the argument of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), too much has been said about Devon and Cornwall and too little about the development areas. The development areas should have special protection, and the Government are wrong in not opposing this form of wording in Committee and now changing their mind and giving a stab in the back to the development areas. I am surprised that hon. Members on the other side of the House who represent development areas are silent on the Amendment. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is not normally silent, and I hope his silence means that he will vote with us in the Division.
§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I am merely awaiting my turn to speak. Would the right hon. Gentleman put this in perspective? Is he not aware that today there is quantity control of 190,000 vehicles, and we are talking about future legislation to deal with only 100,000 vehicles.
§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)
While, naturally, I have a bias towards Devon and Cornwall, the argument is equally true for all the other development areas.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
On a point of order. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was making an intervention. I hope, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has sat down, the interpretation of my intervention will not be that I have made a speech.
§ Mr. Mills
The development areas should be exempted for practical reasons. If the legislation goes through, most of the good work that has been done in development areas, and particularly in the South-West, will be undermined. There is no need for these restrictions and delays. This is typical of the Socialist nonsense we get these days. I cannot understand why it is necessary to plan every single detail of our lives.
The road haulage operators know their job and how to organise. They do not need Government interference. Since my area is devoid of railways, it will be very difficult to divert any of this traffic on to the railways. Already the means of communication are difficult. Why add to the fears that already exist in my area? Manufacturers who want to come into the area are not helped when they realise that not only are communications difficult but restrictions are to be put on them by the Government. I can give many instances of manufacturers who would like to come into the Bideford, Barnstaple and North Devon area but who say, "With all these restrictions and difficulties, why schould we come?"
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—
§ Mr. Mills
I have only two minutes. I have been told that. I have to sit down after that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Restrictions of this sort do not help the development of areas such as the area 1 represent Hauliers are playing their rôole very well, and they should be encouraged and not restricted. They play a vital part already and should be given freedom to continue. Legislation of this 1766 sort will do untold harm to development areas, particularly in the South-West. For that reason, I oppose the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will take note of our fears and the dangers which lie ahead.
§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Aberdeen, South)
I confess that my short time in the House has made me something of a connoisseur of synthetic rage. We have heard some fine examples of righteous indignation from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and some of his Conservative friends. I was especially touched by the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for the Liberal Party's spokesman. He seemed to think that he had had a raw deal, although it appeared to me that he seemed to be enjoying the little bluster with which he opened the proceedings. It was all fantastic nonsense. Parliamentary history is spattered with examples of Governments having to take out Amendments which have slipped through for a variety of reasons.
Living in a development district, naturally my constituents are interested in the merits of the arguments, but even the most fanatical opposer of the Bill would not expect the Government to listen with a semblance of seriousness to the arguments that we have heard.
The Transport Bill is an extremely controversial measure in the north-east of Scotland, and no one is more aware of that than I am. As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn said, there is a great deal of anxiety about it, though in all honesty it must be said that a great deal of it is founded upon misapprehensions and a complete lack of knowledge of what is intended in the Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must bear their share of responsibility for that. I have never heard so much deliberate misrepresentation as has occurred on occasions about the Transport Bill. For example, having read the propaganda that has gone out, an enormous number of people in the north-east of Scotland believe that, as a result of this Clause, no vehicle will drive more than 100 miles from Aberdeen in any circumstances.
If we are to have a useful debate, it can only be in circumstances where both sides of the House agree to try to state the facts, even if they have to go on to 1767 put their own gloss on the results which will flow from them.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn gave three main reasons why he opposed the Amendment. He said that the machinery would be intolerably clumsy in industrial areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, that may be an argument against quantity licensing throughout the country. However, it is totally irrelevant to the Amendment. Though I would not accept it for a moment, there may be a case for total abolition, but, in the context of this debate, one cannot advance those general arguments, which apply as much in the Midlands, London and the South-East as they do to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about problems in the remoter areas. What we have to look at is the best way of getting round them and how serious they will be. I am extremely cynical about any Government who start making exemptions, whether they be for the crofting counties or for the remoter areas, in circumstances like these. Once we start doing that, we create anomalies and fringe areas. Understandably, the Opposition will raise Cain about all sorts of other places being left out which they feel are just as much affected. Mention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of the row over hotel concessions in the Selective Employment Tax provisions. In much the same way, there would be a great outcry in the north-east of Scotland and, for example, in Moray and Nairn, if it was excluded from a concession which applied, for instance, only to the crofting counties.
I accept that there may be specific problems, but the answer is not to try and tear up a system which is broadly justified over the majority of the country. However, in saying that, the Government must be prepared to see that the system works sufficiently flexibly in Scotland as a whole and in other development districts which may be affected. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to a specific case which is of paramount interest to my constituents, and that concerns the fish trade. In our part of the world, it is the key example.
1768 I was glad to receive some reassurance from the Ministry in a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question recently which said that licensing authorities, in the case of objection by the railways, would take into account the fact that the railways have refused to carry goods in the past and have thrown them on to the roads. I was told, too, that they would take into account the enormous investment locally in heavy refrigerated trucks for the efficient carriage of fish by road. But that is the kind of factor which is important and on which we have to nail down the Government to ensure that industries dealing in perishable goods, where there are likely to be short-term gluts, produce special problems. We have to ensure that the licensing system will be operated flexibly and that the licensing authorities will take these factors into account.
The Question to which I received a satisfactory answer deals with one facet. However, we shall not create good will if we go at the whole idea bald-headed and try to abolish it and render it ultimately useless and unworkable. These are not good tactics, nor is it in the best interests of my constituents and those of hon. Members representing other development areas.
When he opened the general attack on the subject in Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin referred specifically to various parts of the country and the difficulties of journeys from such places as Caithness and Sutherland. He went on:They are journeys which frequently can only be made by road if they are to be satisfactory to the producer, and if costs of production and transport are to be kept at a reasonable level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th April, 1968; c. 2494.]There is a problem about keeping costs to a reasonable level, but surely the safeguards of speed, reliability and cost which have been written into the Bill will take care of that difficulty. It is with the intention of ramming home the difficulty and ensuring that it will be taken care of that we should be co-operating in this debate.
I doubt very much—I do not say that I disbelieve it, because that would be discourteous—whether a large number of firms wish to move to Barnstaple or Bide-ford, or even to Scotland, and are 1769 being kept out because of quantity licensing. If that has been said to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), it: is almost certainly a piece of political enthusiasm—[Interruption]—or a polite—
§ Mr. Dewar
I agree that there are problems. We are all worried about the state of our roads. However, the licensing system which we are discussing is not a major obstacle, and neither is it keeping industry out of areas such as those to which I have referred. If I believed that, I would vote against the Government, and continue to do so. But I do not believe that it is anything like the major disadvantage which hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested. The flexible use of the machinery which the Government have constructed should be able to eradicate most of the difficulties.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to know what worries me a great deal more than the proposed quantity licensing system, they should look at the Budget and at the considerable costs which will be laid upon the transport industry as a result of the Finance Bill. That is a much more worrying matter than the present quantity licensing system—
§ Mr. Bessell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled that this debate could not be extended in the wide way in which the hon. Gentleman is now extending it.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
Obviously the Amendment admits of a fairly wide debate, but I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) should now confine his remarks to the point at issue in connection with the development areas.
§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
I represent the same area as the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and I represent the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), Banffshire (Mr. Baker) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who would have spoken if there were not so many other important Amendments to come.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that transport is vital in the North-East and he was cynical about the exceptions which are now in the Bill. But that is not half so cynical as people in the North-East will be about his speech this morning. I respect him for admitting the problem, which is more than the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did, but in saying that we cannot make exceptions and should accept the Minister's assurance he shows himself the kind of paper tiger which we in the North-East have come to expect.
I am not concerned with the Minister's assurance but with the burden of the Bill on transport operators in my area. What will happen when these provisions are put into operation and the Minister's assurances are forgotten? That is why I represent the interests of industry and road haulage in the North-East of Scotland. We have had good service there from the road haulage industry. I will not go into the arguments about haulage of fish, meat and other fresh products, which require quality of service, speed, reliability and economy, such as the private industry gives. It is a service which we want to continue and it should be competed for commercially between private road haulage and the railways. By all means let us have the freight liners, but let the competition be fair and commercial.
More employment is needed in my area, and this will add just one more burden to our transport operators and will affect the attraction of new industries. In Montrose in my constituency, the unemployment rate is 5 per cent. A consideration in attracting industry is good transport. If we add one more burden, that will be much more difficult. My area has a higher proportion of people employed in road haulage than Scotland 1771 as a whole or England and Wales. The representations which I have received have come not just from the operators but from the drivers, because it is their livelihood which will be affected. I hope that we will think of the drivers, who have come to see me many times recently. I hope all of us on this side will reject this Amendment, which is entirely out of touch with feelings in Scotland, especially in the North-East.
§ Mr. Younger
I was very sorry for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), who, by some quirk of fate in the Ministry, had been sentenced to introduce the Amendment, which is deliberately designed to extend to the development areas the restrictions of quantity licensing. The hon. Gentleman, supported unanimously by the Scottish Labour Party members, is proposing these restrictions against development areas.
His most astonishing statement was that the development areas would be no worse affected than any others. Of course they are, for three reasons. First, they are further from their markets. Well over half the industries in Scotland, for instance, have to send goods not 100 but 200 or 300 miles and are, therefore, far more affected than firms in the South-East or London. Second, the distances within the areas are usually well over 100 miles, which again means that they are worse affected. The third reason is the balance of transport in the development areas. Almost every transport operator in remote areas balances his uneconomic journeys with the economic ones which make a profit.
This proposal is an attempt to cream off the most profitable services on to the railways. I support, and always have supported, the interesting idea of freight-liner services, which have done very well and will do better, but I question whether they should be developed by putting unwilling users on to them when they do not think that it is in their interests. Will this build confidence in the freightliners?
Nor should we suggest that these powers will never be used. Many hon. Members opposite have said that our concern is synthetic because the powers 1772 will never be used when they would be disadvantageous. Then what is the point of them? We know that it is intended that they shall be used and that the Bill will be a failure if they are not, and that they will be used against industries in development areas.
If that happened, it would mean that people in industry, who have made commercial decisions that it is more economical or faster to send goods by road, would be told by a licensing authority to send them by other means. This means that the authority will assume the right to a better opinion on this matter than those running the business. I question whether any licensing authority, however enlightened, can be expected to make better decisions than those running the industries.
I hope that the Amendment will not go through, since it is a direct blow to development in development areas.
§ Dr. John Dunwoody (Falmouth and Camborne)
This debate has come about by accident, since these three lines were inserted by a strange means, but it is in the interests of the House to discuss the transport problems of some of the peripheral areas. I will concentrate on Devon and Cornwall, which have real difficulties.
There was discussion earlier about the geographical problems of the far South-West. The peninsula of Devon and Cornwall has unique transport and communications problems. Although some of the mileages which have been quoted may not bear a great relation to reality, nevertheless, the far South-West and West Cornwall in particular are much further from the main centres of population than most people realise. The counties of Devon and Cornwall are large and the distances to be covered are greater than in most other parts of the country. The quality of the communications there is poorer and the progress that can be made along the roads and railways is slower than elsewhere.
There are other special peculiarities of this part of the country. We have heard a great deal from hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies about the difficulties being faced by Scotland. They have been right to bring those problems to our notice, and I have no doubt 1773 that hon. Members who represent Wales and other areas could do the same. Nevertheless, the far South-West is unique among peripheral areas in that the greatest density of population is concentrated on the most peripheral parts of these peripheral areas. In Wales and Scotland on the other hand, the more distant parts are the most sparsely populated.
My hon. Friends who represent the far North of Scotland are fully aware of this and while they represent large tracts of country, they will realise the compactness in terms of population of some parts of the country. The fact that the population is concentrated in the peripheral parts of the peninsula of the South-West and that the small amount of manufacturing industry that we have is also concentrated in those parts causes special difficulties for us.
Some of our other special difficulties derive from our geographical isolation. We have high rates of unemployment and great difficulty in attracting new industry. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned a town in his constituency which has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent. There are many Cornish towns which would like to claim that figure. There are, therefore, some special problems, economic and social, which result from this geographical isolation. We have very low rates of pay and low standards of social amenity because there is not the wealth in the community that there is elsewhere. To a large extent this is related to our geographical isolation and poor communications. It is, therefore, useful that we have been able to go into greater detail on this subject because of this debate.
It would be illogical to try to parcel up the country in a sort of patchwork quilt. Many anomalies have arisen in the past when this has been done in other Measures. It is, therefore, right that the Bill should apply equally to the whole country. I regret much of the criticism and highly emotive propaganda which has been put out about the Bill. I agree that there are genuine causes for concern in peripheral parts of the country about some aspects of the Measure, but the case of those who speak for the isolated areas has been damaged by the extravagant and ludicrous criticisms which have been made about the; Bill. This has done consider- 1774 able damage because the idea has been put abroad that no road transport will be able to go more than 100 miles.
I have been particularly conscious of this mileage figure in West Cornwall, where 100 miles does not take one far. We have the sea on three sides and one is only at the other side of Exeter when 100 miles are up. The provisions in the Bill about speed, reliability and cost mean that in areas such as the one I represent the prospects of the transfer of traffic from road to rail are nil. We hear a great deal about freightliner depots. I would like to think that such a depot will be provided in West Cornwall in the foreseeable future, but I fear that it will not.
§ Dr. Dunwoody
I regret that we will not have a freightliner depot in West Cornwall. The very fact that we will not have one means that, as a result of the Bill, there will be little or no transfer of traffic from road to rail. Many fears have been expressed by special interests in Cornwall, such as the fishing industry, horticulture and the broccoli trade. While those fears have been genuinely felt, they have been whipped up for reasons which are not in the interests of Devon and Cornwall and they are not truly justified.
§ Mr. Nott
If the hon. Gentleman is right and if there is no need for concern because of the speed, reliability and cost factors, would he not agree that that is an argument for excluding these areas from the quantity licensing system? Would he not further agree that transport managers in these areas are able to assess speed, reliability and cost themselves without having a tribunal bearing down on top of them?
§ Dr. Dunwoody
I explained that it would be ludicrous to try to make a patchwork quilt of the whole country and to divide the nation into areas to which one Clause would apply while another would not. All sorts of exclusions would be required. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made this very criticism—the criticism I am making of their 1775 efforts to retain these three lines in the Bill—of certain other recent Government proposals. The Bill should apply equally to the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I trust that the same will be said of other aspects of transport policy. Many areas represented by hon. Members who have spoken today have not had a fair crack of the whip on transport in the last 20 to 30 years and—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss transport in general on the Amendment.
§ Dr. Dunwoody
I cannot go along with those who wish to retain these three lines in the Bill. The country must be treated fairly and squarely as a whole, but I trust that this will mean that in future policies covering traffic, roads, air services and the railways will apply equally generally.
§ Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)
I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends still wish to speak, and this is a tribute to the damage which the Government Amendment will do to their constituencies. However, many other Amendments must be discussed. Because of the guillotine, we will not be able adequately to debate them. We must, therefore, reach a quick decision on the Amendment, and perhaps we will still have a little time to discuss such matters as the criteria, timing, the procedure of quantity control and the question of the onus of proof.
The Government have not only been inefficient in Committee—we had a moment of joy when the Liberal Amendment was approved—but now they are being mean as well. They are being particularly mean in obliging the unfortunate Minister of State, who himself represents a development area, to move an Amendment to exclude the development area. The Government have reached an all-time low.
The damage that will be done by special authorisations to any form of distribution will be aggravated in development areas because of their special problems, such as their low employment, low wages, seasonal unemployment and the very high average age. Anything that we can do to alleviate the hardship felt by these areas will be helpful. Although 1776 there was some hilarity in Committee when the Liberal Amendment was approved, the more one considers it the more one realises that it could be excellent for areas which will be badly hit by this abominable part of the Bill, because it will put them in a somewhat better position.
If an industrialist is considering establishing a factory somewhere and if he cannot make his own decisions for the movement of his goods to the ports and markets, he will not site it in an area in which he comes under this type of control. Businesses will not be encouraged to set up new factories in the development areas, and I particularly have in mind American investment in Britain. I know that in, for example, Dundee this type of investment is very much welcomed. I wonder whether these facilities are now likely to be provided at such a great distance from the main ports and main market centres. That is the grave danger.
The quantity licensing system means tampering with businessmen in making their commercial decisions. The Amendment will damage the chances of foreign investment setting up in development areas, although it has been the policy of successive Governments to attract foreign investment. Existing undertakings will operate under a tremendous differential—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) pointed out, the clay industry in the midlands of Scotland, which was competitive, now will not be. There is also the problem of English china clay in the far West.
§ Dr. Dunwoody
Surely my hon. Friend is not trying to suggest that vast quantities of china clay leave Cornwall by road. Surely it leaves mainly by sea and rail. To suggest that it is mainly by road is incorrect.
§ Mr. Webster
There is so much china clay that a vast amount admittedly goes by sea. I was recently in Cornwall and spoke about the Bill to a receptive audience. A tremendous amount of china clay goes by road, and that is well known. I notice that the hon. Gentleman called me his hon. Friend. I take it that this means he will come into the Lobby with us.
1777 The importance of this issue is shown by the fact that so many of my hon. Friends from development areas feel so deeply and strongly. Yet many hon. Members opposite from development areas have not even bothered to hear the debate. This Amendment is being forced through on a payroll vote, which again shows the low depths to which the Government can plummet, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
§ Mr. Carmichael
I explained earlier that the Amendment was instituted because of an error in Committee. Many attempts have been made to minimise the fact that there was an error. To suggest that the Government did what they did in Committee on this matter out of goodness of heart is wrong. It was an error. Yet one can be pleased in some ways that, because one of my hon. Friends did not say "No", about twelve hon. Members have been able to expand in this House the lengthy debates we had upstairs in Committee on this subject of quantity licensing. Many interesting constituency points have been made by hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee.
I am rather concerned that a number of hon. Members have made reference to the fact that I am a Scotsman and have alleged that I am denying something to Scotland. I make it plain that I think that this is a great Bill and I am convinced that history will confirm that view. I have met the Scottish road hauliers, the T.R.T.A. and many other people about the Bill, both privately and in public and on television. I have found that one often gets a point of view from them when discussing it seriously in this way that is quite different from the reply one gets when asking merely for debating briefs.
The falseness of the anxiety of some hon. Members opposite is expressed in their claim that the development areas have complete freedom in this matter, but that business always knows best about these things. This is one of the matters I have taken up with the R.H.A. and it is amazing how often I have been told that it knows many transport managers who do not know their own costs. The necessity of quantity licensing will force them to look at their costs. We have never tried to hide our concern about the 1778 spare capacity on the railways while road haulage continually expands. It is our belief that some of the expanding traffic should be used by the spare national capacity available on the railways.
We are told that the Government should not interfere in the development areas because business knows best. I remind the House of the example of the shipbuilding industry, which was gradually going down the river, as it were. It needed the Government to come along and say, "Business does not know best in this case. There must be a reorganisation of the industry and we will show you how to do it." The Government are pouring money into the shipbuilding industry, and the yards on the Clyde—
§ 12.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Carmichael
I apologise. I was trying to show that there are many cases in which mere commercial judgment is not enough and where other judgments must come into the matter. Both parties have followed a policy of regional development because they realise that there are other considerations much greater than purely commercial considerations.
I am not ashamed of the Bill. It is a great Bill. I have discussed it in the development areas of Scotland. I am willing to defend it. To accept the Amendment, made in Committee would mean that we did not think that quantity licensing was important or necessary. To exclude only one area would be quite wrong anyway, but the reference is merely to a "controlled journey". It would still be a matter for the courts to decide what a controlled journey is. Possibly it might be 200 miles or 20 miles. The only way to remove the ambiguity is to put Devonshire, Cornwall and other development areas in the same category as the rest of the country in this context.
§ Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)
But why would it be impossible to try out both systems and see what the difference is in various areas?
§ Mr. Carmichael
Do the Opposition want a policy of quantity licensing? We have never had a definite commitment from them about it.
§ Mr. Carmichael
The Leader of the Opposition told the Road Haulage Association that he would remove certain parts of the Bill. Apparently we would have a free-for-all in road haulage if the Opposition were returned to power. That is interesting.
§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)
I make it clear that at the earliest opportunity we will completely and utterly do away with quantity licensing.
§ Mr. Carmichael
So the Opposition will do away with all quantity licensing if they are ever again in government. If nothing else, this debate has wrung from them a statement of their position on that issue and it is worth while for that alone. It means that anyone could get a licence under a Conservative Government.
Our case is quite clear. The only way to restore to the Bill the provisions we consider important in relation to quantity licensing is by accepting this Amendment.
§ Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West)
I make no apology for rising to speak very briefly against this Amendment, because I have sat here throughout the whole of the debates on this section of the Bill. I feel very strongly about it, because these three lines are probably the most important part of the whole section. I have listened with considerable interest to the points that have been made.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who at least did us the honour of taking the whole matter seriously. Many hon. Members opposite did not.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regards this as irrelevant to his area, and there are others who feel the same. [Interruption.] That was the word used. It will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. Davidson
"Irrelevant" was the word used. I regard quantity licensing as being more relevant to the development areas than any other part of the Bill. The words in Clause 67(2) are: 1780The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to … any development area so designated by the Board of Trade.I regard those words as vitally important. If they are removed by this Amendment I shall vote with perhaps stronger feelings than on any other issue for many weeks.
A good point was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). He put in a plea for flexibility. It is on this point that I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. Does he realise the doubt and uncertainty which this whole business of quantity licensing has raised in the North and North-East of Scotland?
I will give one or two examples. First, a small firm manufacturing farm trailers. It delivers farm trailers to anywhere in the United Kingdom at a flat rate of £8. It has a large order book for exports and it wishes to expand its works with a £30,000 extension—presumably borrowed money. It has a quotation from British Railways that if, as a special concession, it puts all its stuff on British Railways, they will give a flat rate of delivery of £28 to anywhere in the country. That is £28 as against £8. This little firm with a large export order book has delayed its £30,000 extension, because of this provision in the Bill.
One of the large paper mills in my constituency is perhaps typical of many firms which have peculiar shaped loads. It puts them on the road all over the United Kingdom very rapidly. Half of its transport fleet should be replaced, but it is awaiting the outcome of the Bill before deciding whether to throw good money after bad to replace these expensive long-distance transport vehicles.
A timber mill sawing up trees and transporting them well over a range of 100 miles. Is it to be forced to put its loads of timber into the railhead at Aberdeen, off-load them on to trucks, load them on to lorries again at the other end and deliver them? This involves double and treble handling. Or is it to be allowed to put its loads straight from the mill on to lorries and so to their destinations?
A factory producing high quality tinned foodstuffs competing with factories all over the United Kingdom. Is it to be forced to containerise its loads, to put its transport fleet out of action, and to deliver down South by rail?
1781 Large quantities of grain can be shipped straight from the farms to the storage depots on the quaysides in South and Central Scotland. Are these farms to be forced to put their grain into trucks, load them on to the railway, and send them south by that method?
These are the kind of issues which are causing grave uncertainty and worry in the North and North-East of Scotland. I want an answer from the Minister right now—I will sit down in a couple of minutes—about the sort of considerations which will be taken into account before this special authorisation is given. This is what is causing uncertainty and worry.
I am not condemning quantity licensing out of hand but I want to know on what sort of conditions that special permission will be given to continue sending these loads by road?
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. Webster
On a point of order. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has already addressed the House.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) got up to intervene in a speech being made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He was under the impression that the right hon. Member had given way, whereas he had in fact finished his speech. In those circumstances, I do not think that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools has exhausted his right to make a short speech. Mr. Leadbitter.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was kind enough to challenge me and I responded. I think that he will agree that I asked him to give way by showing my hand, and he did so. I then indicated that I was waiting my turn, and I posed a question. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be patient. I have been patient. I have sat here now for 24—[HON. MEMBERS: 1782 "Too long."] I have sat here now— [Interruption.] There is plenty of time. I have sat in the House now since Monday morning for over 24 hours. There is sufficient time, on a part of the Bill which, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, appears to be important, to listen to my argument, even though it may be disagreeable to them.
As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, there are already 190,000 vehicles under some form of quantity control. It is also well known that the tests of that control have not been exercised satisfactorily for a long time. However, it does not deny the fact that that element of control is there, and, under present legislation, British Railways have a right to indicate objection if they so desire.
The Government seek to project that principle of control, which has always been accepted, into terms which are more relevant to present-day conditions. Arising out of the development of the freight-liner service, these new conditions are of some importance. The tests of speed, reliability and cost—those are the words in the Bill—must not be considered to be the final conditions under which quantity control—
§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)
On a point of order. Once again, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is filibustering. None of this is concerned with the Amendment or development areas.
§ Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I would urge all hon. Members to be both relevant to the Amendment and brief.
§ Mr. G. Campbell
Further to that point of order. The matters being discussed by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) are due to come up on another Amendment and we look forward to discussing them.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I have now been speaking for three minutes and I have dealt only with the subject of quantity control. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about quantity 1783 control so far as it is conditioned by the wording of the Clause to which hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly, I suspect, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), take exception. The argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin was principally concerned with Devon and Cornwall. He found himself in the unusually happy position, due to an error which has been admitted, of having his argument fortuitously accepted.
Nevertheless, we are discussing 100,000 vehicles or fewer. Out of 1½ million vehicles concerned with the carriage of freight, about 900,000 are exempted, and we are dealing with only 40,000 under the new quantity control provisions. In addition, about 60,000 people own their own vehicles and carry their own commodities. Of the 100,000 vehicles about which we are talking—
§ 12.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Bessell
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the 100,000 vehicles are only in Devon, Cornwall, and the development areas? That is what the Amendment relates to. If he is, is it right that these 100,000 vehicles should be discriminated against, and every other vehicle exempted?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been expecting the hon. Member to come to the proviso which is the basis of the Amendment. He has not yet mentioned it. He must speak to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
The hon. Member for Bodmin asked whether these vehicles were only in the areas to which he referred. The answer is "No", and to use the word "discrimination" without qualification is not logical.
We are discussing whether we should have quantity licensing for part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) had a good point when he said that if we are not to have quantity licensing all over the country, it is better not to have it at all. On the other hand, if there is some merit in quantity licensing, it is illogical to have it for part of the country and to exclude other parts. I believe that the Government's proposal to intro- 1784 duce quantity licensing for a limited number of vehicles, all of which are over 16 tons gross weight and which carry only 7 per cent. of the freight traffic—
§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
They may carry only 7 per cent. of the total tonnage, but it is 40 per cent. in ton mileage terms, which is much more important.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
That strengthens my argument. Comparative figures are always interesting. It is misleading to talk about 7 per cent. if my hon. Friend has in mind 40 per cent. of the traffic.
In a highly congested country such as this, Mr. Deputy Mayor—[Laughter.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My thoughts were on the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), and the only former mayor of a local authority to serve on a Standing Committee, to whom I intended to address my observations.
§ Mr. Webster
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a most shameful example of filibustering. We are operating under a guillotine motion, and yet the hon. Gentleman has made speech after speech and wasted the time of the House.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will conclude his remarks quite soon.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I have my eye on the clock, and I have now spoken for seven minutes. It does not worry me if hon. Gentlemen opposite waste their time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are giving some credence to the allegation that he is filibustering. I hope that he will keep to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I must insist that it is not my intention to filibuster. Speaking for seven minutes cannot be regarded as filibustering.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
On a point of order. Under our present procedures the servants of the House do not keep a record of the length of speeches made on Report. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is incorrectly interpreting the length of time for which he is speaking. He is filibustering. May we have placed on the Letter Board 1785 a record which will confirm the untruthfulness of what he is saying?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is a matter for the House, but I think that it would be advisable if hon. Members were not to interrupt the hon. Member who has the Floor. He may then come to a conclusion.
§ Mr. Bessell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am anxious to conclude my speech. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is a clear example of discourtesy.
In view of the congestion on the roads, and because of the need to benefit from the vast investment in freightliner services, in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me an assurance that some of the commodities now carried by road would be transferred to the railways. He answered a question which I asked about The Hartlepools and Teesside. Designated areas—and this is the nub of the Amendment—will not suffer because of this legislation.
§ his remarks to the Amendment, which refers only to Devon and Cornwall.
§ Hon. Members: No.
§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am referring to development areas, and I am anxious to take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton.
In Committee I expressed some anxiety about how quantity licensing would affect The Hartlepools and Teesside. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear that traffic now carried by road would not be forced on to the railways unless it could be shown that from the point of view of speed, reliability, and cost there was an irrefutably clear case for doing so. He made it clear that road hauliers would not be victimised or discriminated against. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton might well have benefited had he been a member of the Committee and listened to the debates, or been present in the House since Monday, instead of coming in at this stage and making mischievous interventions.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 260. Noes 220.1789
|Division No. 192.]||AYES||[12.40 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Driberg, Tom|
|Albu, Austen||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Dunn, James A.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, (E.)||Cant, H. B.||Dunnett, Jack|
|Alldritt, Walter||Carmichael, Neil||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)|
|Alien, Scholefield||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)|
|Anderson, Donald||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Eadie, Alex|
|Archer, Peter||Chapman, Donald||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Coe, Denis||Edwards, William (Merioneth)|
|Attains, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Coleman, Donald||Ellis, John|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Conlan, Bernard||English, Michael|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Ennals, David|
|Bagler, Cordon A. T.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Ensor, David|
|Barnes, Michael||Crawshaw, Richard||Evane, loan L, (Bim'h'm, Yardley)|
|Barnett, Joel||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Faulds, Andrew|
|Bence, Cyril||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Fernyhough, E.|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Dalyell, Tarn||Fletcher, Raymond (IIKeston)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Blackburn, F.||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Foley, Maurice|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, Ifor (Cower)||Ford, Ben|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Forrester, John|
|Boyden, James||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Fowler, Gerry|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Delargy, Hugh||Freeson, Reginald|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Dell, Edmund||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)||Dempsey, James||Gardner, Tony|
|Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Dewar, Donald||Garrett, W. E.|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Court ay, Harry|
|Buchan, Norman||Dickens, James||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dobson, Ray||Gregory, Arnold|
|Grey, Chariot (Durham)||McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Richard, Ivor|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)||Mackie, John||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.||Mackintosh, John P.||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Hamling, William||Maclennan, Robert||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)|
|Hannan, William||MacMillan, Malcoolm (Western Isles)||Robinson, W. O. J. (Watth'stow, E.)|
|Harper, Joseph||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Roebuck, Roy|
|Hasesdine, Norman||MacPherson, Malcolm||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||Rose, Paul|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Henig, Stanley||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ryan, John|
|Hooley, Frank||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Manuel, Archie||Sheldon, Robert|
|Howarth, Harry (Weltingborough)||Marks, Kenneth||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Marquand, David||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Howie, W.||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Hoy, James||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Mayhew, Christopher||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)||Mendelson, J. J.||Slater, Joseph|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Mikardo, Ian||Small, William|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Millan, Bruce||Snow, Julian|
|Hunter, Adam||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hynd, John||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.|
|Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Molloy, William||Swain, Thomas|
|Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Taverns, Dick|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n & St.P'cras,S.)||Moyle, Roland||Thornton, Ernest|
|Jenkins, nt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Neal, Harold||Tinn, James|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Newens, Stan||Urwin, T. W.|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Norwood, Christopher||Varley, Eric G.|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||O'Malley, Brian||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)||Oram, Albert E.||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Orme, Stanley||Wallace, George|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Oswald, Thomas||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Judd, Frank||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lawson, George||Palmer, Arthur||Whitaker, Ben|
|Leadbltter, Ted||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Whitlock, William|
|Lestor, Mist Joan||Park, Trevor||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pavitt, Laurence||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Willis, Rt. Hn. George|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pentland, Norman||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Winnick, David|
|Luard, Evan||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Price, William (Rugby)||Woof, Robert|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Probert, Arthur||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Yates, Victor|
|McBride, Neil||Randall, Harry|
|McCann, John||Rankin, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|MacColl, James||Rees, Merlyn||Mr. J. D. Concannon and|
|MacDermot, Niall||Reynolds, C. W.||Mr. Ernest G. Perry.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Braine, Bernard||Currie, G. B. H.|
|A Mason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Brewis, John||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Astor, John||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)|
|Balniel, Lord||Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N & M)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas|
|Batsford, Brian||Burden, F. A.||Doughty, Charles|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Campbell, Cordon||Drayson, C. B.|
|Bell, Ronald||Carlisle, Mark||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Eden, Sir John|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)||Cary, Sir Robert||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Channon, H. P. G.||Emery, Peter|
|Bessell, Peter||Chichester-Clark, R.||Errington, Sir Eric|
|Biffen, John||Clark, Henry||Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Clegg, Walter||Ewing, Mrs. Winifred|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Cooke, Robert||Eyre, Reginald|
|Blaker, Peter||Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Farr, John|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Corfield, F. V.||Fisher, Nigel|
|Body, Richard||Costain, A. P.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Crouch, David||Fortescue, Tim|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Crowder, F. P.||Foster, Sir John|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Ridley, Hn. Nioholas|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'd field)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Giles, Bear-Adm. Morgan||Lloyd, Ian (p-t[...]t-th, Langstone)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Glyn, Sir Richard||Lubbock, Eric||Royle, Anthony|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Russell, Sir Roland|
|Goodhart, Phillip||MacArthur, Ian||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Goodhew, Victor||Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Cower, Raymond||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Grant, Anthony||Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain||Sharpies, Richard|
|Grant-Ferris, R.||McMaster, Stanley||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Silvester, Frederick|
|Grieve, Percy||Maddan, Martin||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Maginnis, John E.||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Halt-Davis, A. G. F.||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Smith, John (London & W'minster)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Marten, Neil||Speed, Keith|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Maude, Angus||Stainton, Keith|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Mawby, Ray||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Stodart, Anthony|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Miscampbell, Norman||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hastings, Stephen||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hawkins, Paul||Monro, Hector||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Montgomery, Fergus||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Heseltine, Michael||More, Jasper||Teeling, Sir William|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Hiley, Joseph||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Murton, Oscar||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Holland, Philip||Neave, Airey||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Hordern, Peter||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Hornby, Richard||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Nott, John||Wall, Patrick|
|Hunt, John||Onslow, Cranley||Walters, Dennis|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Webster, David|
|Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Pardoe, John||Williams, Donald (Dudley)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Peel, John||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Kerby, Capt. Henry||Pink, R. Bonner||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Pounder, Rafton||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Kimball, Marcus||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Worsley, Marcus|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wylie, N. R.|
|Kirk, Peter||Prior, J. M. L.||Younger, Hn. George|
|Kitson, Timothy||Pym, Francis|
|Lambton, Viscount||Quennell, Miss J. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Mr. R. W Elliott and|
|Lane, David||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Mr. Humphrey Atkins.|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|