HC Deb 08 July 1946 vol 425 cc179-93
Mr. Ivor Thomas

I beg to move, in page 26, line 11, to leave out from "Order", to the end of the Subsection, and to insert: (2) In the appointment of members of the Ai' Transport Advisory Council the Minister shall have regard to all appropriate interests, including the interests of—

  1. (a) the technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organised labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and
  2. (b) those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons."
This is to meet an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). We told him at the time that we were willing to accept the principle of the Amendment but wished to consider the wording. In particular we pointed out that there were other interests besides those mentioned by him which the Minister had to consider in regard to the making of appointments to the Air Transport Advisory Council. We have, however, found ourselves able to accept the words that he proposed with the addition of the words "all appropriate interests." This means also we must omit certain words from Subsection (1), where it is laid down that the members of the Council shall have such qualifications as His Majesty thinks necessary for' the performance of the duties imposed on the Council by this section. As the qualifications are now specified, it is necessary that these words should be deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out from "question," to the end of line 19, and to insert: which may be referred to the Council by the Minister, being a question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities, or being a question which in the opinion of the Minister requires consideration with a view to improving the adequacy or efficiency of air transport services. This also is an Amendment designed to meet the wishes of the Committee upstairs. In this case, we have found it possible to accept the identical words proposed in Committee.

Mr. Mikardo

I would like to ask your guidance in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is my view, and the view of some of my hon. Friends, that the Amendment proposed by the Government does not in fact carry out the pledge given in the Committee. It is our view that, in order to fulfil that pledge, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which is on the Paper in my name would have to be included. May I ask whether it would be in Order, in discussing the Amendment moved by hon. Friend, to refer also to the Amendment to the Amendment which follows; and whether an opportunity will be provided to take the view of the House on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

It is competent for the hon. Member to make his point on the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary; and, if he is not satisfied, to move his Amendment to the Amendment for the purpose of having a Division if that is necessary.

Mr. Mikardo

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to take the opportunity to explain my point to Members of the House who were not Members of the Committee and, consequently, did not take part in the extremely interesting debate which we had on this subject. Its full significance may be missed except by those who go into considerable detail in the study of the wording, and in the study of the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Clause, as originally drafted, gave the Air Transport Council not only the authority, but the duty, to investigate particularly two types of subjects. One was matters relating to services and fares raised by consumers, and to that extent the Air Transport Council was a consumers' council, or rather a tribunal to which might be referred objections and grievances on the part of consumers against the services which were being provided. As far as that goes, I am sure that the House will agree that this is an excellent instrument, whereby those who use, either in wholesale or retail, so to speak, the services of the Air Transport authority—the nationalised airways—can bring their views to the notice of the Minister when they think the services are inadequate, or the charges excessive.

The second duty imposed upon the Air Transport Advisory Council was to investigate matters other than those covering the mere question of facilities and charges, only in those cases where the Minister directed them to make such an investigation. It was the view of a number of my hon. Friends in the Committee that the restriction upon the second of these duties was unwarranted, and that, in point of fad, the Air Transport Advisory Council should be empowered to consider all questions brought to their notice which concerned in any way any of the services of any of the air transport corporations, irrespective of the source from which the reference came. If it is important that a service should be provided which is not being provided, then the importance of that question does not diminish, if it is brought to the notice of the Air Transport Advisory Council by a Member of this House and not by the Minister. The relative importance of the question is not affected by the source from which it comes, and it seems wrong that only two classes of individuals, or, rather, one class of individuals and one individual, shall be allowed to bring things to the notice of the Air Transport Advisory Council. Further, in the case of the class of individuals so allowed—namely, the consumers—the terms of reference under which they make representations to the Minister are very grievously limited indeed.

May I put it this way? It should be open to anybody who knows anything about air transport, and who thinks he has an idea to contribute which will improve the service being offered by the air corporations—it should be open to any such bona fide person to put his views before the Air Transport Advisory Council for their consideration. This is not permitted in the Clause as it stands, or as it would be altered by the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend. In order to be able to make any representation at all to the Council he would, first, have to take a ride in one of the corporations' aeroplanes. Then, having taken that ride, he could then write to the Air Transport Advisory Council and say not that the aeroplane was unsafe, but only that he was charged too much for his flight. Apart from such persons, who are consumers, the only person who can make representation to the Council, and, indeed, the only person in the whole world who can make representation to the Council on any subject connected with the work of the corporations, is the Minister himself.

When we argued this case in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), feeling, perhaps in a prophetic moment that the Parliamentary Secretary did not fully understand the full implication of the pledge he gave, in the very last moment of the discussion, indeed, in the very last words that were said in the discussion, made quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary did realise to what he was committing himself and the Government. What my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough said was the following: It will be noticed, perhaps, by the Parliamentary Secretary that two avenues of approach are taken into consideration here. One is the reference made to the Advisory Council by the Minister, and the other, matters brought to the notice of the Council from outside.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 533.] It is the second point which is not covered in the Amendment as moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friends and I feel strongly about this, because even if a failure to implement a promise given in Committee is inadvertent and due to error, this does not diminish its importance. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to ask his noble Friend, who is conveniently in the other place, to use the machinery of the other place to alter this, along the lines have indicated, we feel in duty bound to test the view of the House on this important question.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made what any Minister standing at this Box must regard as a very serious charge, namely, that I have not carried out a pledge given in Committee upstairs. I have a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I am bound to remark that he gave a wholly misleading statement of what took place. Anyone interested in the subject will find a record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the eleventh Sitting in cols. 532 and 533. First the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) spoke to an Amendment, which in fact has been accepted. Then the hon. Member moved a further Amendment, which I have also moved. He asked me to see that the proper weight which will be given to the wording of the previous Amendment will apply also in the case of the two Amendments to which I have just referred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 532.] It was not clear at the time what he meant, but I presumed he meant those Amendments which were in his name and which we have accepted, but it now appears that there was another. The hon. Member for Reading has quoted the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I did not understand at the time what they meant, but he has not informed the House that there was no comment of mine upon them, and no promise of mine that they would be taken into account.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Reading now wants, and what the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough wanted in an Amendment not called upstairs, is something quite different. This is meant to be a consumers' council. We believe that it will serve a very useful purpose, and we do not wish to see it transformed from that character into a body which could deliberate upon any subject connected with the air services of the corporations. That is a very different proposition indeed. We have agreed that the Minister may refer matters affecting the adequacy or efficiency of the air transport services to the Air Transport Council, but it would be a different matter if any member of the public could bring any question affect- ing, not only consumer interests but the adequacy or efficiency of air transport services, before the Council. It would alter the character of the Council entirely. There may be an argument for doing that, but we want to have a consumers' council here, and we have gone as far as we can, providing that that fundamental object is preserved. I am bound to oppose my hon. Friend in this because this proposition would convert the Air Transport Advisory Council from a consumers' council into a body concerned with all questions affecting air transport.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Debate has not taken the general form I understood it would take. I think we must dispose of the first Question, to leave out the words indicated in the Amendment, and propose the second Question, to insert words, and then the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) could move his Amendment to the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Mikardo rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has already spoken. I think that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) was about to move the Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. Cooper

I am not clear what are your intentions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do you wish me to speak on the Amendment?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

There is an Amendment to insert certain words, and there is on the Order Paper an Amendment to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). Perhaps the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) will move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "by the Minister."

Mr. Cooper

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line r, to leave out "by the Minister."

I will not take up much time in describing what has led up to what appears to be a misunderstanding. It seems to me extraordinary that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he proposed this Amendment, should say that he had implemented the principles that were enunciated during the Committee stage. I hope to show that that is, from our point of view, a hopeless misconception of the principles which we tried so carefully to describe.

There were two main conceptions which could be taken by the Government on this idea of an advisory council. It could either be a judicial body, rather like the Railway Rates Tribunal, dealing with facilities and rates, so that if anyone had complaints on those two matters they could bring them before the council to get a decision, which would presumably be implemented by the corporation, or which would at least go to the Minister for his consideration. The other line tint might be taken was that the advisory council should be a representative and independent body of skilled and experienced opinion. That was the second line taken in Committee by a number of hon. Members on both sides, and that is what we thought was agreed to by the Government. The whole purpose of following the second line of argument was this: Here we have a nationalised undertaking coming into being. What is going to be the reaction of the people who are associated with this corporation; that is the people who use the services which the corporation provide and the people who provide the services, employed inside the corporation —the producers of the services? There are two main bodies of opinion which can reasonably come together on the advisory council, representing the producers and the consumers. We are anxious that, in these nationalised undertakings, there shall be some body recognised under the Act, which gives a chance for the democratic spirit of nationalised industry to express itself.

That seems to us to be a terribly important principle, and we adhere to it -very tenaciously, because we feel that unless there is some body of opinion that can express this sense of democratic participation both by producers—the employees and management—and the users, these things can become autocratic organisations run by the Minister, from whom it may be very difficult to get answers in this House. We see already objections being taken to the powers of hon. Members to bring matters to this House of an unpleasant nature. The earlier Debate illustrated exactly that sort of thing being forced on hon. Members, because there is no such body as is envisaged in this very important Amendment. I suggest that the Government, by refusing to recognise the principle which we feel was clearly indicated in the Committee will enforce that situation, and it may deteriorate into a position which is most unpleasant for all hon. Members of this House. When the overwhelming consideration must be the efficiency of our air lines what else is there for hon. Members to do? I suggest that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the employees because they feel that these organisations are not being run efficiently. Under this proposal, if they make recommendations to the executives, managers and directors of these organisations and find that their difficulties are not remedied, they can then adopt a recognised procedure, a clear straightforward procedure, which is provided for in the Bill. They can make their representations on questions of efficiency, and on improved methods of organisation, which is an essential principle in large scale industrial management in order that the proper development of the corporations shall not be hindered. They can put their ideas before the consultative and advisory body which can give the points proper and independent consideration. As the Clause now stands all sorts of stupid and frivolous points may be put to the Minister, but this Amendment would prevent the Minister from having to sift these and it prevents unnecessary criticism in this House. As nationalized undertakings are extended it is necessary that this House should be relieved of all unnecessary and petty details of criticism.

I should like to go farther. It is the intention of this Amendment, and of those who spoke on it in Committee, that there should be a proper advisory and consultative system from top to bottom of these industries, with a sense of participation and responsibility of the employees in the way in which each industry is run. It applies to all those interested in the operation of efficient air services, whether producers or users. A case has come to me of a man who travelled with the British Overseas Airways Corporation. He travelled quite extensively to the Middle East, and to East and West Africa. When he returned to this country, he was indignant at the way he had been treated. He was a man of influence, and he was able to bring the point before one of the directors of the corporation. I do not know if the criticisms were dealt with adequately, but if the ordinary person has a complaint, what has he to do? I suggest that he should use this consultative advisory body.

This idea of the need for participation on the part of all the people concerned in nationalised industry has already been recognised by the organised trade unions. It has been expressed over a period of many years by the T.U.C., to which I referred in the Committee stage. In 1944, in its interim report on nationalised industries, it is quite specific, and proposes at the top level this body of opinion, representing the ideas and suggestions which come from those people who are engaged in the industry. The suggestion therefore by the Parliamentary Secretary, that we require a purely consumer council cuts right across the arguments brought forward by the T.U.C. and held by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I would suggest, further, that a recent development in industry in this country gives a special lead to the point we are making. I refer to the working parties.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is going far too wide. He should deal with the question of the Minister, but he is ranging over a very wide field, and over a variety of subjects which are not relevant. I must ask him to keep to the point.

Mr. Cooper

I was endeavouring to show the background against which the points I am giving can be intelligently appreciated. I have tried to indicate the function of, and the need for, this advisory council. In the Amendment which was accepted by the Government, there was reference in the Committee to the need for referring to it not only to facilities and charges, but also matters of adequacy and efficiency. In the Clause, as amended, if we read the Government's Amendment in conjunction with Subsection (2, b), it will be noticed that representations may be brought before the Council "from any quarter,"but the matters are restricted to "facilities and charges." We suggest that in order to incorporate in the Government's Amendment the principle we advocate which the Parliamentary Secretary has assured us it has been the intention to incorporate, in paragraph (b) there should be added to "facilities and charges" the words "adequacy and efficiency," otherwise the Clause will restrict too much the considerations that may be brought before the Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made the point clear that this was our intention. I specifically referred to it at the close of the Debate in Committee on this Clause, and the Parliamentary Secretary did not deny the point. This was that it should be possible for the Advisory and Consultative Council to consider matters brought to it not only by the Minister, but also from outside interests, covering not only facilities and charges, but the two further points of adequacy and efficiency.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is now dealing with a later Amendment and is going far too wide. He must confine himself to the question whether the words "by the Minister" should be left in the Amendment or not.

Mr. Cooper

I appreciate the point, but I thought it was necessary to make the description of this matter complete. Before I conclude, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it was his intention to incorporate the principles which we described in the Committee? A further point will depend upon his answer to that question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member must await the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir I. Fraser

I have had the experience of being a director, or, in this particular case, a governor, of the B.B.C. for nearly 10 years. It is the most obvious example of one of these public corporations of large-scale operation and large staff. I venture to warn the House against acceptance of the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). He seeks to widen the terms of reference of the Advisory Council so that it may become an opposition to the executive. In particular, he says that members of the staff, presumably all grades of the staff, em- ployed by a corporation, should be able to go to the Advisory Council with suggestions as to the efficiency and adequacy of the service or of the organisation as a whole. The directors must be responsible to the Minister. It seems to me impossible to have some parallel organisation, call it what you will, to which their own staff can go, and put up suggestions and complaints because they have been unable to get them heard through the ordinary channels. Discipline would break down and there would be an impossible situation. If we must have these corporations —and I for one deplore the increase in the number and variety of them—if we are to have our industries run by public corporations, we must vest in the directors of the industry full discretion in the day to day carrying out of their job; otherwise you will have inefficiency beyond description.

11.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I think there has been some misunderstanding about what happened in Committee and about the effect of the Clause and the Amendment, misunderstanding which perhaps results from too narrow an interpretation of the wording of the Clause as drafted. I shall try very shortly to show the House wily it is necessary that these words should he retained. Under Clause 36 (2, b), as the matter now stands the door is open—and very widely open—to representations being made to the Council from any quarter at all. It is perfectly true that that would not enable the Advisory Council to conduct a kind of roving inquiry into all the activities of these corporations at the same time, or to undertake any general attack on the economic efficiency of the corporations as a whole. Those matters, in our view, are essentially for Parliament to deal with but whilst it would not be open for the Advisory Council to deal with matters of that kind, the Council can fully protect both the consumer interest, and the producer interest.

So far as the consumer interest is concerned, the consumers, without as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) suggested ever having travelled in an aeroplane at all, as far as I can make Out under the terms of this Clause, are entitled to bring up questions about the facilities provided, possibly the adequacy of a particular service between point and point, possibly its frequency, possibly its efficiency, possibly the fact that it was not comfortable or had too many breakdowns, or a question of the charges made in respect of any particular service. Those are matters which consumers could, quite properly, bring before the Advisory Council. Again, the producers' interest is protected because, producers would be entitled to bring matters before the Advisory Council if they thought, and could show, that inefficient organisation of the corporation was reflected in the facilities which the corporation was providing; that the facilities were inadequate or that the charges were too high, or whatever it might be. In those ways, in our submission to the House, both consumers and producers may bring any proper representation to the notice of this body; and this body having had such matter brought to its notice, would be required to deal with it in a semi-judicial way.

Mr. Mikardo

Before the Attorney-General leaves that point, would he answer this simple question? Supposing an aircraft manufacturer, whose products were being used by one of the corporations, felt that his machines were being incorrectly used so that his goodwill would be lost and that this would adversely affect the service of passengers, under which Subsection of the Clause as it now stands could he make representation to the Air Transport Advisory Council to the effect that his machines were being used differently from the way in which they were constructed to be used?

The Attorney-General

If the improper use of the manufacturer's machines was resulting in the facilities available to the public being prejudiced in some way—the charges being too high or the time being too slow, or whatever it might be; if he could say that because his machines were being flown upside down, or whatever it was, that they were uncomfortable, and that the facilities were not as good as they ought to be, that would seem to me to come exactly within the four walls of the Clause as at present framed. Any matter affecting the facilities or the charges could be referred to the Council from any quarter at all. If they could say that they were not being properly served because there were too few machines, or because they were being flown too slowly, or because the charges were too high, these are all matters about which the Advisory Council would have to arrive at some conclusion, that is, on representations that may be made from any quarter.

But in addition, it is desired to enable the Minister to obtain advice—not to ask the Council for some semi-judicial finding on a particular representation, but to ask the council to give its advice. The Minister could take into account such advice as the experts were able to bring to bear on the matter in order to come to a definite conclusion. Clause 36 (2, a) is intended to cover that case of the Minister. If the words were omitted, the Clause would become wholly ineffective and indeed would be completely otiose. I hope therefore that hon. Members behind me, while they may not feel that in every respect they are getting the comprehensive body that they desire to see, will feel that the Advisory Council has very wide powers, which can be very properly used on representations from practically any quarter.

Mr. Cooper

I should be obliged if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the House why under the new Clause there should be the reference to "adequacy and efficiency" while under paragraph (b) there is a specific reference only to "facilities and charges." Why should such a specific differentiation be made? Is it a drafting error? I think that is an

important issue and if an answer could be given to it, or even if the words "adequacy and efficiency" could be included in the second reference, I think that that would cover my point.

The Attorney-General

I do not think there is any question of a drafting error. It is true that different words are used, but if one refers to the Clause it will be seen that there is reference to any question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities. Those words are about as wide as anything could be. It may be that for abundance of caution other matters have been inserted, but taking these words alone, it is obvious that the Advisory Council can, on representations from any quarter, consider almost anything.

Mr. Cooper rose——

Mr. McKie

On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member received the leave of the House to make a further speech?

Mr. Cooper

I want to raise a specific point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Question put, "That the words by the Minister ' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 30.

Division No. 240.] AYES. [11.25 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Collindridge, F. Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Collins, V. J. Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Allen, A C. (Bosworth) Comyns, Dr. J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Allen, Scholefield (Crews) Corbett, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Attewell, H. C. Corlett, Dr. J. Grenfell, D. R.
Austin, H. L. Crossman, R. H. S. Grey, C. F.
Awbery, S. S. Crostriwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Daggar, G. Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Bacon, Miss A. Davies, Harold (Leek) Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Balfour, A. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Guy, W. H.
Barstow, P. G. Deer, G. Hale, Leslie
Barton, C. Diamond, J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Bechervaise, A. E. Dobbie, W. Hardy, E. A.
Benson, G. Dodds, N. N. Harrison, J.
Bing, G. H. C Driberg, T. E. N. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Binns, J. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Haworth, J.
Blackburn, A. R. Dye, S. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Braddock Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hicks, G.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Hobson, C. R.
Brook, D. (Haifax) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Holman, P.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Evans, J. (Ogmore) Hoy, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Buchanan, G. Ewart, R. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Burden, T. W. Farthing, W J. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Burke, W. A. Fletcher, E. G.M. (Islington, E.) Irving, W. J.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Foster, W. (Wigan) Janner, B.
Chamberlain, R. A. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Champion, A. J. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Chetwynd, Capt. G. B. Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Clitherow, Dr. R. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Kenyon, C.
Cocks, F. S. Gibbins, J. Key, C. W.
Coldrick, W. Gibson, C. W. Kinley, J.
Kirby, B. V. Pargiter, G. A. Swingler, S.
Lang, G. Parker, J. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Lee, F. (Hulme) Peart, Capt. T. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Perrins, W. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Lindgren, G. S. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Lyne, A. W. Popplewell, E. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
McAdam, W. Porter, G. (Leeds) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
McGhee, H. G. Pritt, D. N. Tiffany, S.
Mack, J. D. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Titterington, M. F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Randall, H. E. Tolley, L.
Maclean, N, (Govan) Ranger, J. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
McLeavy, F. Rankin, J. Ungood-Thomas, L.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Reid, T. (Swindon) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mallaljeu, J. P. W. Richards, R. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Rubens, A. Weitzman, D.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Marquand, H. A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Medland, H. M. Rogers, G. H. R Wigg, Col. G. E.
Messer, F. Royle, C Wilkins, W. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Scollan, T Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R. Scott-Elliot, W. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R Shackleton. Wing-Cdr. E. A. A Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Monslow, W. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrave)
Moody, A. S. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Williams, W R. (Heston)
Moyle, A. Shurmer, P. Willis, E.
Murray, J. D. Simmons, C. J. Wills, Mrs. E. A
Nally, W. Skeffington, A. M. Wilson, J. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Skinnard, F. W. Woods, G. S.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Smith, Capt, C. (Colchester) Wyatt, Maj. W.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Yates, V. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady Smith, S, K (Hull, S.W.) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
O'Brien, T. Smith, T. (Normanton) Zilliacus, K.
Oldfield, W. H. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Orbach, M. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Paget, R. T. Stamford, W. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.
Palmer. A. M. F. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Baird, Capt. J. Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Baldwin, A. E. Hewitson, Capt. M. Renton, D.
Bossom, A. C. Hutchison, Ll.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Ross, Sir R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr G. Lambert, Hon. G. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Mellor, Sir J. Walkden, E.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Foot, M. M. Neven-Spence, Sir B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Pitman, I. J. Major Vernon and Mr. Mikardo

Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committees and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Forward to